Preamble

The House—after the Adjournment on 3rd April for the Easter Recess—met at half-past Two o'clock.

MR. SPEAKER'S ABSENCE

The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. SPEAKER.

Whereupon Mr. SYDNEY IRVING, The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair as DEPUTY SPEAKER.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SERVICES

National Insurance Scheme

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is aware that many workers laid off by industrial disputes or other causes work two or three days a week but have to pay the full National Insurance contribution for that week; and if he will take steps to introduce proportional contributions for cases in which only proportions of the normal working week are worked.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. David Ennals): It would be impracticable to vary the present flat-rate contributions according to the proportion of the week worked; but under our proposals for a new scheme of national superannuation and social insurance the contributions of employees will move with their earnings.

Mr. Roberts: Does my hon. Friend accept that as benefits are paid on a proportional basis it would be equally just if contributions were paid proportionately? Because of the increased use of machinery, would not the added burden on administration be minimal?

Mr. Ennals: This applies to the new scheme when it is introduced. To introduce it now, at a time when we are using National Insurance cards and

stamps, would mean having four or five times as many stamps, and would add tremendously to the problems of administration both of the Post Office and of employers.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the latest figures available for the percentage of gross salary a man earning £10, £20, £40, £100, and £1,000 a week pays in National Insurance contributions; and whether he will take steps to introduce a non-contributory National Insurance scheme.

Mr. Ennals: The figures are: 7·33 per cent., 5·54 per cent., 2·91 per cent., 1.16 per cent. and 0·116 per cent. respectively if paying graduated contributions; if contracted-out from the graduated pension scheme, 8·04 per cent., 4·25 per cent., 2·25 per cent., 0·9 per cent. and 0·09 per cent. respectively. These percentages exclude the contribution to the National Health Service. As regards the second part of the Question, the answer is "No, Sir".

Mr. Roberts: Does my hon. Friend accept that those figures prove without doubt that the present contributory scheme puts a heavy burden on the lower-paid worker? Does not my hon. Friend believe that as we are considering a social security system which is designed to last for 20 years or more, that system should be based on a non-contributory basis?

Mr. Ennals: There are two parts to that question. First, the flat-rate system imposes a proportionately heavier burden upon lower-paid workers. This is one of the main reasons why we are introducing a new earnings related system. Secondly, when my hon. Friend suggests that we should base National Insurance on a non-contributory, and therefore presumably on a taxation system, I must say "No". This would add, at the present rate, 6s. 9d. on the standard rate of Income Tax, and I do not think that it is a proposal which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would welcome at the present time.

Sir G. Nabarro: In order to present a proper balance to the House on this matter, would not it be appropriate to quote the figures after taxation, as direct taxation runs up today to 18s. 3d. in the £


on top marginal rates, which is both extortionate and exorbitant?

Mr. Ennals: If the hon. Gentleman wants to put down a Question on that he is at liberty to do so.

Industrial Disputes (Supplementary Benefit Payments)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the total amount paid out to the families of men engaged in industrial disputes in the form of supplementary benefits over the latest year for which full figures are available.

Sir Knox Cunningham: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will state the amount paid in supplementary benefits to the families of persons taking part in official and unofficial industrial disputes, respectively, during the past 12 months.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Norman Pentland): In 1968 payments totalling £333,722 were made for the dependants of men involved in trade disputes.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that this annual rate of subsidy from the taxpayer to strikes regularly described by the Prime Minister as "sabotaging the economy" has risen seven-fold since this Government came to power? What do the probation officers from our international creditors have to say about this when they inspect the books from time to time?

Mr. Pentland: I have no knowledge, without notice, of the last point in that question, but, if payments were not made to the dependants of the strikers, the hon. Gentleman must realise that great hardship would be imposed upon wives and children.

Sir E. Bullus: Will not all this be rather academic when the Government have rushed through their legislation on the subject?

Mr. Pentland: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman would put down a Question to that effect, I should be glad to reply.

Noise (Effect on Health)

Mr. Archer: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has studied the results of recent research into the effect of noise on health; and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. Ennals: I know of no recent reports of research into the effect of noise on health generally, but we have recently received a report on research into the effects of industrial noise on hearing. It has been referred to the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council for consideration and advice and also to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity.

Mr. Archer: Would my hon. Friend agree that it is better to avoid injury to health than to compensate for it afterwards? Would he seize the opportunity, while this is being considered, to invite his colleagues from other Departments to consider methods by which injury to health can be reduced rather than the people concerned being compensated afterwards?

Mr. Ennals: I will bring those points to the attention of my right hon. Friends.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: Would the hon. Gentleman see that some research is done into the effects of noise, particularly on those living in the vicinity of airports, which is becoming a growing menace to health?

Mr. Ennals: That is quite a different question. The right hon. Gentleman can put down a Question to the appropriate Minister.

Mr. Richard: Might I pursue the question raised by the right hon. Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan)? With respect, this is not a question for another Ministry. If there is a health hazard because of aircraft noise to those living in the vicinity of airports, that seems to me very much within my hon. Friend's portfolio. Does he not think that it is high time that rather more vigorous steps were taken to make those of his hon. Friends who are responsible for the number of aircraft going into London Airport more aware of the dangers to health of continuous noise?

Mr. Ennals: The research to which I referred is, of course, Government-sponsored, undertaken by the Medical Research Council and the National Physical Laboratory of the Ministry of Technology. It is very serious and fundamental research into the problems of noise in industry. We are considering this very seriously, but the terms of reference do not include the effect of noise at a distance from an airport.

Pensions

Sir B. Rhys Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what allowance he will make in settling the terms for contracting out of the proposed state graduated pension scheme for the fact that payments by employees into private schemes are accepted as a deduction from income for tax purposes but those to the state scheme are not under present arrangements.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Richard Crossman): I would ask the hon. Member to await the results of our current study of the detailed arrangements for contracting out under the new scheme.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Is it not obvious that the Government have got themselves into a thorough muddle over this? Would it not be better to admit that social insurance and Income Tax are simply different aspects of the same cash relationship between the individual and the State, and by so doing cut the Gordian knot?

Mr. Crossman: That, of course, would mean providing an entirely new scheme, which would imply, I suppose, in the first place, abjuring the rights to a return on their contributions which millions of contributors have received, and this we do not intend to do.

Mr. Worsley: But surely the right hon. Gentleman will accept that the impact of Income Tax and the impact of contribution on the family must be considered together. Does he realise that his proposals immensely increase the disincentive effect of the total? What will he do about that?

Mr. Crossman: That, again, is somewhat different to the Question, and I replied to the part which was asked. If

one tried to take into account the advantage gained by occupational schemes through the Income Tax concession, one would have to observe that some gain it and some do not. For instance, in the case of all non-contributory schemes the gain is nil.

Mr. McMaster: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will take steps to make it obligatory for contracted-out pension schemes to give beneficiaries increases dependent on the general level of prices.

Mr. Crossman: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) on 3rd March.—[Vol. 779, c. 17.]

Mr. McMaster: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it obligatory that the benefits under contracted-out schemes shall rise along with general increases in wages and salaries?

Mr. Crossman: I thought that I had dealt with that in my original Answer.

Mr. McMaster: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how much revenue he estimates will be lost from the proposed State pension scheme for each one quarter of a million contracted out.

Mr. Crossman: The answer depends primarily on the level of abatement of the contributions for contracted-out employees. This has still to be worked out.

Mr. McMaster: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when, if contracting out continues at the present rate, the scheme will come into deficit?

Mr. Crossman: If we have the same number of people as we have at present, when the scheme would come into deficit would depend on the terms on which they were contracted out, which have not yet been agreed.

Mr. Worsley: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate what are his objectives in this respect? How many people would he like to see contracted out of the scheme?

Mr. Crossman: This is a difficult question to answer because it depends on the balance of advantage. I want a scheme which is fair to those contracted in and


to those contracted out. I suppose my aim would be to get contracting out on about the same level as now.

Homes for Unmarried Mothers

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many homes for unmarried mothers were closed during 1968; and how many are likely to close during 1969 and 1970.

Mr. Ennals: Exact figures are not available but my information is that about 25 homes closed during 1968, including some maternity homes which closed in recognition of the fact that it is desirable for unmarried mothers to be confined in hospital.
We have no means of assessing what closures may take place in 1969 and 1970, but it is the responsibility of local health authorities to ensure that suitable provision is made as necessary for the care of expectant and nursing mothers generally.

Mrs. Short: Does not my hon. Friend think it a rather extraordinary situation that homes of this kind can be closed at a time when the illegitimate birth rate is increasing, particularly among girls still at school? Does he not think he should investigate the matter to see whether local authorities are making proper use of the facilities that they already have?

Mr. Ennals: Most of the facilities that exist, though responsibility lies on local authorities, are provided by voluntary organisations—normally religious organisations. It should be noted that the number of applications for accommodation has fallen to the point where in some cases it is not economic for a home to continue in being. It is true that an increased number of those requiring maternity treatment now naturally go to maternity hospitals rather than to private institutions.

Prescription Charges (Exemption Claims)

Mr. Bidwell: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the number of clerical grade officers and senior officers employed by the executive council covering the Southall constituency to check claimed exemptions from medical prescription charges; what was the num-

ber of prescriptions checked between September 1968 and January 1969; what was the number of patients found not to have been entitled to exemption; and what was the total of the charge recovered from those patients.

Mr. Orbach: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many clerical grade officers and senior officers are employed by or engaged within the Stockport Executive Council to check entitlement to exemption from prescription charges; what is the estimated annual cost, the number of prescriptions checked in the year ended December 1968 and the number of patients found not to be entitled to exemption; and what was the total of the charge recovered from these patients.

Mr. Gardner: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the number of clerical grade officers and senior officers employed by the Nottinghamshire Executive Council to check entitlement to prescription charge exemptions; what is their estimated annual cost; what was the number of prescriptions checked between September 1968 and January 1969; what was the number of patients found not to be entitled to exemption; and what was the total of the charge recovered from these patients.

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the number of clerical grade officers and senior officers employed by the Sheffield Executive Council to check entitlement to exemption from prescription charges; what is their estimated annual cost; what was the number of prescriptions checked between September 1968 and January 1969; what was the number of patients found not to have been entitled to exemption; and what was the total charge recovered from those patients.

Mr. Will Griffiths: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the number of clerical grade officers and senior officers employed by the Manchester Executive Council to check the entitlement to exemptions from prescription charges; what is their estimated annual cost; what was the number of prescriptions checked between September 1968 and the nearest convenient date; what was the number of patients found not to be entitled to exemption;


and what were the total charges recovered from these patients.

Mr. Lomas: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the number of clerical grade officers and senior officers employed by the Huddersfield Executive Council to check the entitlement to exemption from prescription charges; what is their estimated annual cost; what was the number of prescriptions checked between September 1968 and January 1969; what was the number of patients found not to have been entitled to exemption; and what was the total charge recovered from those patients.

Mr. Spriggs: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the number of clerical grade officers and senior officers employed by the St. Helens Health Executive Council to check the entitlement to exemption from prescription charges; what is their estimated annual cost; what was the number of prescriptions checked between September 1968 and January 1969; what was the number of patients found not to have been entitled to exemption; and what was the total of the charge recovered from those patients.

Mr. Julius Silverman: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the number of clerical grade officers and senior officers employed by the Birmingham Executive Council to check the entitlement to exemption from prescription charges; what is their estimated annual cost; what was the number of prescriptions checked between September 1968 and January 1969; what was the number of patients found not to be entitled to exemption; and what was the total of the charge recovered from those patients.

Mr. Willey: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the number of clerical grade officers and senior officers employed by the Sunderland Executive Council to check the entitlement to exemption from prescription charges; what is their estimated annual cost; what was the number of prescriptions checked between September 1968 and January 1969; what was the number of patients found not to have been entitled to exemption; and what was the total of the charge recovered from those patients.

Mr. John Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the number of clerical grade officers and senior officers employed by the Executive Council for the city of Sheffield to check the entitlement to exemption from prescription charges; what is their estimated annual cost; what was the number of prescriptions checked between September 1968 and January 1969; what was the number of patients found not to have been entitled to exemption; and what was the total of the charge recovered from these patients.

Mr. Leadbitter: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the number of clerical grade officers and senior officers employed in the Northern Region and Hartlepool, respectively, to check the entitlement to exemption from prescription charges; what is the estimated annual cost; what was the number of prescriptions checked between September 1968 and January 1969; what was the number of patients found not to have been entitled to exemption; and what was the total charge recovered from those patients.

Mr. Crossman: As a number of figures are involved, I will, with permission, circulate a tabular statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT

Mr. Bidwell: I look forward eagerly to seeing those figures. Is it not a fact that the return to prescription charges generally undermines our Socialist ideas? Should we not get rid of this taxation on the sick as soon as we possibly can, so as to get back the favour of our supporters in the country?

Mr. Crossman: I should have thought that that was a somewhat different question from the question which my hon. Friend asked me, which was about the cost of the staff employed. I can help him by saying that I estimate that the cost of staff averages less than ¼d. for each exempted prescription, or about ¼d. for each prescription charge of 2s. 6d. I hope that my hon. Friend will take that as a general reply.

Mr. Hooley: Would my right hon. Friend agree, though, since he knows the figures and we at the moment do not, that they will show that this exercise in the principle of individual selectivity in


the social services is not useful in terms of money or manpower? Will he in future resist this individual selectivity principle which is so urgently demanded by hon. Members opposite?

Mr. Crossman: If my hon. Friend is asking me whether I expect further charges to be imposed on the Health Service, the answer is "No."

Mr. Will Griffiths: Although we do not know these figures yet, my right hon. Friend will be aware that we have the advantage of having seen the figures for the London area. In the light of an Answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt), would my right hon. Friend not agree that money would be better spent on extending the exemptions among the chronic sick or, indeed, exempting secondary school children over 15? Would he read again his speeches from the 1950s on?

Mr. Crossman: If my hon. Friend is referring to the figures for Willesden or London, I suggest that he waits and considers the figures for the rest of the country, because I think there is no evidence that increases in the total wages bill exceed expectations.

Mr. Lomas: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that we should not have given him permission to answer all these Questions together because we are not in possession of the facts? But would he say how this accords with the speeches and statements made by himself, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health at the time on this subject? Is it worth the candle to do this for 2s. 6d?

Mr. Crossman: I think the Question that my hon. Friend asked was about the cost of the clerical grade officers and I am not sure that that has very much to do with speeches about prescription charges. What he is asking me is whether the administrative burden is financially heavy, and all I can say is that in that way the imposition of these charges has not had an effect other than that anticipated.

Mr. Silverman: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the administrative cost set out in the Answer which we have not had the benefit of seeing is only a part of the total social cost? Would he remember that the burden which is imposed, not only on the admini-

strative workers but upon chemists and others, is considerable?

Mr. Crossman: Yes, indeed. Of course, administration and the financial cost of the staff is only one part of the burden of prescription charges. It is also worth noticing that nearly half the population are exempted from them.

Mr. Dean: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen a speech made by one of his Ministerial colleagues over Easter who stated that charges in the National Health Service would have to go up? Are prescription charges going up? If so, what effect will that have on administrative costs?

Mr. Crossman: That is a slightly different question. If the hon. Gentleman wants to put it down, I will answer it.

Dr. Summerskill: Would my right hon. Friend say whether the total number of prescriptions issued by doctors has increased since the imposition of charges? If it has fallen, would he attribute that to the imposition of charges?

Mr. Crossman: My hon. Friend should put down a Question on that matter. It is a difficult question to answer because I should have to have an estimate of the effect of the prescription charge. I should seek to do so if I had a precise question to answer.

Lord Balniel: Did not the right hon. Gentleman in a supplementary answer say that no more charges would be introduced? Therefore, is not my hon. Friend's question absolutely germane? Is there any intention to increase prescription charges?

Mr. Crossman: The answer is "No".

Mr. Pavitt: When we see these figures, will they be taken into account with all the other administrative charges that lie both in the hospital service and in the local executive councils? When added together will they be charged against the amount coming in as income from prescription charges or hidden in other accounts to give us a false answer? Does not this make the whole thing irrelevant?

Mr. Crossman: My hon. Friend is very learned in these matters. I am not sure that I can answer that question very easily. Perhaps he will put down in a precise form what he is asking about prescription charges.

Following is the information:


CHECKING OF CLAIMED EXEMPTION FROM PRESCRIPTION CHARGES



Estimated staffing and costs on an annual basis
Results of Checks



Number of Officers engaged on checking (whole-time equivalents)

Period to which question relates
Number of prescription forms checked
Number of patients found to be not exempt



Executive Council
Senior Officers
Clerical Officers
Costs
Charges recovered





£



£
s.
d.


Middlesex (covering Southall)
0·1
4·8
5,600
September, 1968 to January, 1969
9,100
166
25
2
6


Stockport
*
0·5
400
Year ended December, 1968
800
4
1
2
6


Nottingham County and City
—
2·8
2,400
September, 1968 to January, 1969
4,500
40
7
15
0


Sheffield
—
1·3
1,000
September, 1968 to January 1969
700
—
—


Manchester
0·2
1·8
1,900
September, 1968 to March, 1969
6,600
43
8
0
0


Huddersfield
*
0·4
300
September, 1968 to January, 1969
1,100
6
1
2
6


St. Helens
0·1
0·1
300
September, 1968 to January, 1969
800
19
4
12
6


Birmingham
0·2
3·3
3,700
September, 1968 to January, 1969
7,600
142
25
10
0


Sunderland (see also Northern Region)
*
0·2
200
September, 1968 to January, 1969
1,900
15
2
15
0


Northern Region comprising Carlisle, Cumberland, Darlington, Durham, Gateshead, Hartlepool, Newcastle upon Tyne, Northumberland, South Shields, Sunderland, Teesside, Tynemouh, Westmorland and Yorkshire North Riding
0·4
5·8
5,400
September, 1968 to January, 1969
25,100
307
57
7
6


Hartlepool (see also Northern Region)
*
0·2
200
September, 1968 to January, 1969
700
11
2
7
6


* Indicates a figure less than 0·05.

Abortion Act

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with the operation in general of the Abortion Act in relation to the facilities afforded by the medical profession to women seeking terminations of pregnancy; what action he plans to take to enable the National Health Service to meet its obligations to women patients in this respect; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Crossman: I am by no means satisfied so far as private practice under the Act is concerned. I have recently reviewed the question of the standards required in approved establishments, and have asked for additional information before granting my approval or re-approval which is needed to enable any such establishment to continue in use after 27th April. It is too early to reach

conclusions about the adequacy of National Health Service hospital facilities, but I am watching the situation closely.

Mrs. Short: Will my right hon. Friend continue to watch this very carefully with regard to the National Health Service? Is he aware that some consultant gynaecologists are issuing blanket refusals to take any terminations at all, even though they may be referred and recommended by two or even three medical colleagues? Does my right hon. Friend not think it is high time that women were freed of the tyranny of a certain section of the medical profession in this regard, and will he see what can be done to ensure that the law is in effect carried out?

Mr. Crossman: I agree that my hon. Friend has pointed out an extreme danger which may occur in certain cases.

Mrs. Short: It does.

Mr. Crossman: If my hon. Friend will send me details I shall be grateful. But I should point out that the danger I mentioned is at the moment a far graver one.

Dame Irene Ward: Arising out of the hon. Lady's supplementary question, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that a lot of the medical profession think that the Measure was placed on the Statute Book without sufficient safeguard in it and without the medical profession as such being able adequately and properly to express its views?

Mr. Crossman: I am as aware as the hon. Lady of what happened during the course of the Bill. The Amendments to the Bill did not satisfy even everybody in this House about the safeguards. However, the question that I was asked was about how the Act is working. There is no doubt that the way that the Act is working, in particular in the private sector, is giving grave alarm even to those who were keen supporters of it.

Mr. Brooks: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who supported the principle of the Act will nevertheless welcome his recent strictures and actions? Does he also agree that there is undoubtedly a financial racket being worked in this sphere, and will he consider carrying out an investigation into this aspect of a very shady and unsatisfactory situation?

Mr. Crossman: I entirely share my hon. Friend's feelings. I am having a most careful investigation made about all aspects of what is going on, but I have to limit my activities to what I am legally entitled to do. This is what I referred to in my original answer.

Sir G. Nabarro: As the Question specifically refers to the general operation of the Statute, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to have regard to the large number of foreign women alleged to be entering this country—

Mrs. Short: Rubbish.

Sir G. Nabarro: —to take advantage of the liberality of our reformed abortion laws? Will he take steps to investigate cesser of that abuse?

Mr. Crossman: I am keeping this aspect under careful review. It is some-

thing that applies solely to the private sector, and, of that, one sector in London. However, I am looking at the matter very carefully, indeed. I would remind the hon. Member that the figure represents a tiny proportion of the total number of operations performed.

Mr. Pavitt: I ignore the exaggerations of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro). Nevertheless, will my right hon. Friend discuss with the B.M.A. the problem that arises when people from abroad who are not entitled to an abortion operation can go to a local practitioner and, by reason of a private fee, get a referral to hospital? Will my right hon. Friend discuss that angle with the doctors concerned?

Mr. Crossman: That is one of the subjects I want to discuss with the B.M.A. As I say, I am gravely concerned about aspects of the working of the Act, but it is too early yet to draw general conclusions.

Supplementary Benefit Claims

Mr. Fortescue: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether, as a result of the regular reviews of all new claims for supplementary benefit from unemployed persons under 45 years of age, made in the light of his predecessor's Answer to the hon. Member for Horncastle on 25th July 1968, he can now state what proportion of such applicants are not genuinely seeking work.

Mr. Ennals: No, Sir. The arrangements to which the hon. Member refers are not designed to provide any such figure, but to encourage people who are fit and for whom jobs are available to find suitable work as quickly as possible.

Mr. Fortescue: The Minister refuses to answer my Question, though I see no reason why the information should be kept secret, but would he not agree that the scheme introduced by the previous Minister has been well worth while? In view of the fact that in the financial year that has just ended the cost of unemployment benefit will have approached the staggering figure of £200 million, does he not agree that some such scheme is urgently necessary in employment exchanges as well?

Mr. Ennals: I did not refuse to answer the hon. Gentleman's Question. The


figures for which he asked are not available, as I said, but I agree that the steps taken by my right hon. Friend have proved successful. I can give the hon. Gentleman some figures. Two steps were taken with regard to fit, unemployed persons under the age of 45. First, in areas where jobs are available, single, unskilled men are told at the outset that their allowance will be limited to four weeks. That step applies to about 2,000 cases a week. Secondly, in other cases the allowance is reviewed after it has been running for three months. The claimant may then be told that he can continue for only a further four weeks. This step applies to about 200 cases a week.

Mr. Worsley: Does not the Minister of State recognise that there is very wide public concern over this matter? Will he not be a little more communicative to the House and say exactly what is being done?

Mr. Ennals: I am being extremely communicative to the House. I have just given information about the precise steps taken by my right hon. Friend. It was because there was concern that a minority of people were taking advantage of the provisions that my right hon. Friend acted in this way. I am now demonstrating to the House by means of a great deal of information that the steps my right hon. Friend decided then to take have proved very worth while.

Mr. Heffer: Is it not clear to my hon. Friend that people receive a greater amount of income precisely because the present Government are much more concerned about unemployment than ever any Tory Government were?

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Ennals: I agree. By a number of steps we have taken, including the short-term graduated system, we have shown that we are concerned not only with the unemployed but with all those who are facing difficulties, whose needs are being met not only by National Insurance but by supplementary benefits.

Doctors (Dispensing)

Mr. Fortescue: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he plans to amend Regulation 27 of the National Health Service (General Medical and

Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations, 1966, so that the present one mile rule covering dispensing by doctors is replaced by an arrangement more convenient to patients.

Mr. Crossman: As my hon. Friend the Minister of State indicated in the debate on the Consolidation Fund (No. 2) Bill on 25th March, I expect very shortly to announce a decision.—[Vol. 780, c. 1450–3.]

Mr. Fortescue: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply. Will he do everything possible to speed things up? It is a long time since the Government announced their policy in regard to this demarcation dispute between two honourable professions, both of which would welcome a decision as soon as possible.

Mr. Crossman: I appreciate that the delay has been unfortunate, but it is the result of new Ministers coming in. It has taken some time to learn both sides of the dispute, and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that it is not an easy decision to take.

Disease Incidence (Regional Variations)

Mr. Brooks: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of those diseases which, on the basis of data on cause of death, show a statistically significant regional variation in their incidence throughout England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ennals: Yes, Sir. Detailed figures for England and Wales are published in the Registrar-General's Decennial Supplement, 1961, Area Mortality Tables and Life Tables.

Mr. Brooks: Will not my hon. Friend agree that geographical correlations can be of great value in isolating previously unsuspected possible causes of disease, as was done in the relationship between dental caries and fluoride? Will he indicate whether there is any evidence to show the relationship between radiation levels and the varying forms of cancer in this country?

Mr. Ennals: I should want notice of the second half of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. Apart from the figures in the Supplement, I have additional figures which indicate that there


is a very wide range of different causes of mortality—geographical, environmental, industrial, social and economic. The material my hon. Friend will receive provides a good deal of food for thought.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Has the Minister of State seen the interesting reports on the relationship between hard and soft water and coronary disease, and will he encourage extra research into this aspect? Is not this subject rather more important than the fluoridation of water supplies?

Mr. Ennals: I would not agree with the second half of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, but I will look at the subject to which he refers.

The information is as follows:

The following is a list of diseases which, on the basis of data on the cause of death, show a statistically significant deviation from the average for the whole country in one or more standard regions of England and Wales in 1967. Certain diseases which show statistically significant regional deviations in one sex only are so qualified.

Tuberculosis of the respiratory system. (Males only.)
Malignant neoplasms; all sites. (Males only.)
Malignant neoplasms; stomach.
Malignant neoplasms; trachea, lung, bronchus.
Malignant neoplasm; Uterus. (Females only.)
Diabetes mellitus. (Females only.)
Anaemias. (Females only.)
Vascular lesions affecting Central nervous system.
Chronic rheumatic heart disease. (Females only.)
Arteriosclerotic heart disease including coronary disease.
Degenerative heart disease.
Other diseases of the heart.
Hypertension with heart disease.
Hypertension without mention of heart.
Influenza.
Pneumonia.
Bronchitis.
Other diseases of the respiratory system (Males only.)
Senility without mention of psychosis; ill defined and unknown causes.

Clinical Trials

Mr. Dean: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a statement on the scope and purpose of clinical trials he is conducting or proposes to conduct in co-operation with doctors.

Mr. Crossman: Clinical trials sponsored by my Department are for the purpose of providing information which will

be of use in defining policy or leading to better use of resources. Trials are currently being undertaken, for example, in acute myocardial infarction, where home treatment is being compared with intensive hospital care; in the treatment of varicose veins, where injection compression sclerotherapy in out-patients is being compared with straightforward surgical techniques; and in other situations where particular developments, such as new monitoring equipment or sterile environments, are being evaluated in clinical situations.

Mr. Dean: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that information. Can he help to deal with a confusion which has arisen with regard to the term "clinical trial"? Is he aware that following the Medicines Act this is often regarded as a trial of new medicines? Will he take steps to ensure that the term is used rather more specifically than appears to be the case at present?

Mr. Crossman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his expression of thanks and will bear his point in mind.

National Superannuation and National Insurance

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many women's organisations in Scotland have made representations to him about the White Paper on National Superannuation and National Insurance; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Crossman: None, Sir.

Mr. Eadie: I am surprised at my right hon. Friend's reply. What steps has he taken to acquaint women of the advantages which would accrue to them from this scheme? What single facet does he think gives them advantage in this scheme?

Mr. Crossman: I hate to say it, but my Answer referred only to Scotland. I have received quite a number of replies and suggestions from England. As to the way in which we seek to help women to understand the scheme, we have a popular version of the White Paper which summarises admirably precisely what women get under the women's charter of the scheme. This White Paper is being increasingly read.

Earnings Rule

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what progress has been made in his consideration of a change in the earnings rule for the wife of a disabled man.

Mr. Ennals: I have at present nothing to add to the Answer I gave to the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) on 3rd March.—[Vol. 779, c. 28–9.]

Mr. Ridsdale: Is it not very wrong that once the earnings of a disabled man's wife go above £2 16s. she loses the whole of those earnings? Something should be done about this at once, especially in these days of high cost of living and inflation.

Mr. Ennals: The rule reflects the view that it would be unfair and uneconomical to pay a married man on his contributions a substantial increase for a wife who was financially self-supporting. A wife who earns more than the amount of the dependency allowance ceases to be a dependant. This is the principle. As I said in my Answer to the hon. Member for Harborough, the question of the levels is now being examined and a statement will be made in the comparatively near future.

Lord Balniel: Is it not of great importance to the psychological health of the wife of a disabled person that she should be encouraged to go out to work and not discouraged? Is not the abolition of this earnings rule, which cannot cost a great deal of money, a very high priority in the reconstruction of social security?

Mr. Ennals: The noble Lord is presumably referring to the disabled man. We have also to look at the unemployed man and the sick man, who are equally affected. It is not fair to pick on one section of the community without considering the others. This is a point which is well recognised in the new scheme which we shall be introducing, and as far as the levels are concerned, a statement will be made later.

Industrial Disease Research

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how much his Department is spending on giving aid to research into industrial diseases; and if

he will list the amount spent in each category.

Mr. Ennals: Expenditure on research under Section 71 of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act during the last financial year amounted to £14,120. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the detailed table asked for.

Mr. Eadie: Is my hon. Friend aware that far too many working people are crippled by pneumoconiosis? Does he agree that if the effect of this terrible disease could be minimised the work force would be not only more comfortable but better able to assist in building the country's productive wealth?

Mr. Ennals: A study of pneumoconiosis is already being undertaken by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. I agree that this is an important subject for research, but a great deal of work has already been done on the subject.

Mr. Tinn: As many more days are lost through illness and injury sustained at work than are lost through strikes, is my hon. Friend satisfied with the amount his Department is spending on this? It seems a disappointingly small figure. Can he assure us that no worth-while projects of research are being held up through lack of funds?

Mr. Ennals: The figure for one year does not give a very fair impression because, although there are three researches which the figure I gave in part covers, one of the researches—for instance, that on industrial noise and hearing—was a very much larger research and much more of the cost was carried in earlier years. If new proposals are put forward as a basis for research, I assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend will look at them very carefully. We are already substantially expanding the field of research in both parts of the new Department for which my right hon. Friend is responsible.

Following is the table:


Subject of research
Expenditure


Industrial noise and hearing
£12,350


The incidence of injuries to hands, arms or shoulders from the use of vibration tools
£1,400


The possible industrial relationship of pulmonary infection due to anonymous mycobacteria
£370



£14,120

Hotels and Restaurants (Food and Hygiene Regulations)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, how many hotels and restaurants were inspected in 1968; and how many prosecutions were initiated for breaches of food and hygiene regulations.

Mr. Ennals: The local authorities are responsible for both inspection and prosecution. The information requested is not recorded centrally.

Mr. Hamilton: Does not my hon. Friend agree that there are far too many hotels and restaurants in which the standards of hygiene leave far too much to be desired? Is he aware that the Medical Officer of Health for Brighton, speaking in the "World at One" programme this morning, indicated that there are many of these establishments in Brighton and other seaside resorts? Will he take vigorous action to bring these establishments to heel and see that they observe the regulations?

Mr. Ennals: As I told my hon. Friend, the responsibility is primarily one for local authorities, but I agree that in some cases—I am not going to specify—the standard is much below what one would expect and which we and visitors to this country are entitled to expect. I hope that what has been said in the House today will be brought to the attention of local authorities which have this responsibility.

Sir E. Bullus: The hon. Gentleman said that he is not prepared to specify any areas, but would he at least clear London of this charge?

Mr. Ennals: No, I certainly would not. I myself have experience certainly in restaurants and cafés where I consider the standard is well below what the British public and visitors from abroad are entitled to expect.

Venereal Disease (Prescription Charges)

Mr. Lomas: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will introduce amending legislation to the National Health Service Act, 1952 to remove the exemption from the payment

of prescription charges from those persons suffering from venereal disease.

Mr. Crossman: No, Sir.

Mr. Lomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while I recognise that the treatment of venereal disease is a social necessity, many of my constituents are asking—in fact, they have written to me—why people who contract venereal disease "through pleasure" should be exempt from payment, while persons who contract arthritis as a result of work should have to pay? This has made nonsense of the system of prescription charges.

Mr. Crossman: The explanation is that we are signatories of the Brussels Agreement of 1924 under which we are obliged to provide free treatment for venereal disease.

Supplementary Benefits (Margin for Amenities)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what part of the supplementary benefit scale rates, in shillings and pence, is calculated as a margin for amenities, that is to say, a cash income to be spent in accordance with the individual's needs and preferences.

Mr. Pentland: The whole of a supplementary benefit payment is a cash income which the individual can spend in accordance with his own needs and preferences. It is not possible to analyse this into component parts since people's spending habits vary widely. Since 1964 benefit rates have improved by 19 per cent. in real terms so that all beneficiaries have an increased margin of spending power to use as they please.

Mr. Driberg: Does my hon. Friend mean, from what he has just said, that this sum is variable in accordance with different people's tastes and preferences? If so, is it not difficult for the local officers to calculate it—and if my hon. Friend cannot estimate the components of the total rate, how can he arrive at the total?

Mr. Pentland: The Supplementary Benefits Commission is concerned about increasing the margin of spending power so that people themselves can decide how they wish to spend their supplementary benefit.

Occupational Pensioners (Unemployment Benefit)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is aware that the hon. Member for Barking has had no substantive reply to a letter from a constituent, forwarded to the Department on 12th September 1968, concerning payment of unemployment benefit to occupational pensioners, and has received interim replies, the first dated 6th November 1968, stating that this matter was to be studied urgently, the second dated 10th March 1969, stating that no decision would be taken for some time; and if he will expedite a decision.

Mr. Pentland: As my letter of 10th March to my hon. Friend explained, it would be premature to come to any decision in advance of the report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee on the draft regulations. The Committee is aware of the widespread interest in this matter, on which it has received a great deal of evidence which it is now considering.

Mr. Driberg: Complicated though this matter, no doubt, is, can my hon. Friend say why it has taken the Committee so long to report to his Department? Does he realise that meanwhile a number of these occupational pensioners are waiting with considerable anxiety knowing that they have paid National Insurance contributions all their working lives?

Mr. Pentland: I am aware of the concern on the matter, but, as my hon. Friend said, it is a complicated and difficult problem. The National Insurance Advisory Committee has had considerable evidence submitted to it, and representations have been made by the trade unions and other bodies. It will report as soon as it possibly can.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Teaching Hospitals (Patients' Rights)

Mrs. Joyce Butler: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will introduce legislation to safeguard the rights of patients in teaching hospitals; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Crossman: I strongly deprecate attempts to coerce patients to take part

in teaching, more particularly since they contradict the clear assurance given to my hon. Friend by my predecessor when she moved new Clause 3 of Health Services and Public Health Bill. In view of recent disturbing evidence, I have gone into this question afresh and I can now give my hon. Friend an assurance that no teaching hospital makes treatment conditional on the patient consenting to participate in teaching.

Mrs. Butler: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he can make it clear that the assurance that he has just given does ensure that hospitals will not in future confine their services to patients who agree to co-operate in medical education, and that what he has just said supersedes the recent cases which have been reported to him where teaching hospitals have made treatment conditional on patients co-operating in teaching?

Mr. Crossman: I should like to put the matter in this way. I was not satisfied by the replies given to an investigating gentleman called Mr. Armstrong from three teaching hospitals, which seemed to imply something which did not accord with my predecessor's assurance. However, I went into it. In fact, the practice of none of these hospitals was to exclude anybody. So the situation was satisfactory. But I must admit that an impression was given by certain of the secretaries that a patient would not be encouraged to go if he was not prepared to accept the teaching.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: While entirely agreeing with all that the right hon. Gentleman has said, may I ask him to make it quite clear that teaching cannot continue in teaching hospitals unless people are willing to be used as clinical material and that the overwhelming majority of patients in teaching hospitals are willing and glad to co-operate?

Mr. Crossman: I might add that my replies have applied mainly to the London hospitals where the problem arose. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Teaching hospitals obviously assume that the great majority of patients will not object. Indeed, they do not object. Some of them positively enjoy being important and interesting persons in the hospital. Nevertheless, we must preserve


the right of the minority to object. The point of my answers was that what my predecessor said remains as clearly categoric as he said it.

Mr. Fortescue: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the position of child patients in this matter must be particularly safeguarded? Will he undertake that no child is used for teaching purposes in a hospital without the permission of its parents?

Mr. Crossman: I think I am right in saying that the assurance applies to the parents of a minor in the same way as it applies to the parents themselves.

Non-teaching Hospitals (Casualty Departments)

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with the operation of the casualty departments of non-teaching hospitals in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Crossman: I am satisfied that the concentration of services into designated accident and emergency departments is enabling hospital boards to provide a more effective service in the interests of patients.

Mr. Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some small hospitals are more deficient in their casualty departments than in any other department? Should not this be given full priority in any rethinking that is going on in the National Health Service?

Mr. Crossman: I am aware that there may be accidents where it appears to be almost to the advantage of the patient to be taken to a nearby small hospital than to a larger one. Nevertheless, in general it is clear that the modern kind of accident and emergency department is far better able to deal with grave accidents than the smaller hospital. After all, accidents cannot be diagnosed on the spot on the road. Therefore, it is important to get the patient to a place where he can be dealt with adequately.

Family Planning

Mr. Brooks: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many circulars dealing with family planning have

been sent to hospitals in the past 25 years; and what analysis he has undertaken of their results.

Mr. Crossman: Circulars issued to local authorities in 1966 and 1967 were brought to the attention of hospital authorities, which were asked to co-operate with local health authorities in the introduction of a comprehensive service. The circulars did not call for reports from hospital authorities.

Mr. Brooks: Will not my right hon. Friend agree that in this respect there is great scope for the hospitals? Will he indicate whether fresh legislation is needed to give hospitals the same rôle as that now performed by local authorities, or does he envisage the work at present committed to local authorities being subsumed by the hospitals in the light of the forthcoming report on the tripartite structure?

Mr. Crossman: I do not think I would accept the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question at all. I have always assumed that local authorities were the right people to run this advisory service, and that what was done by the hospitals was only secondary, and done in relation to those who went to the hospitals. In any reorganised service, I take it that it would be not the hospitals but the services outside the hospitals that would still do the work.

Mr. Christopher Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us are very concerned about the lack of progress among local authorities in taking this job seriously so as to cater for all the women who need the service? What progress is being made?

Mr. Crossman: I share my hon. Friend's concern. It is very unfortunate that this new service was launched at a time of increasing financial stringency. Some local authorities seem much too inclined to regard the small sum they give to this work as being the first thing to dock when things are difficult, which is something I greatly deprecate.

Mrs. Renée Short: Would not my right hon. Friend point out to local authorities that it is much cheaper—if we must look at this question from the economic point of view—to spend a few hundred pounds on family planning services for all women,


married or unmarried, in a local authority area than to spend the money needed after the baby has been born on the various services that the child and the mother may need? Does he not also agree that maternity hospitals are very productive places where this kind of advice could be given? Does he know how many maternity hospitals are giving family planning advice?

Mr. Crossman: I can see that the idea could be launched in the maternity hospitals. I rather agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, but I should like to put it that I should like this country to be known primarily for its family planning and only secondarily for abortion.

Road Accident Patients (Insurance Company Payments)

Mr. Michael Heseltine: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what revenue was received in 1967 and in 1968 from insurance companies in payment to National Health Service hospitals for treatment to patients injured in road accidents.

Mr. Ennals: Hospital income in England and Wales from fees and charges under the Road Traffic Act, 1960, was £583,000 in 1966–67 and £611,000 in 1967–68.

Mr. Heseltine: Is not the principle of making charges within the Health Service where an insurance scheme stands behind the patient a sound one? Will the Minister of State consider the possibility of extending insurance schemes of this sort to areas other than those involving motor accidents?

Mr. Ennals: No; I will deal only with the Question that has been tabled. It was a right decision which was taken. Section 5 of the Public Expenditure and Receipts Act, 1968 empowered the Secretary of State to vary the sums specified in the 1960 Act. Since then there has been a regulation which has substantially increased the fees involved. The estimated income for 1969–70 will be over £1 million from this source.

Mr. Pavitt: Will my hon. Friend resist any question of helping to develop private insurance schemes with a view to adding to the income of the National Health Service, since the inevitable consequence would be a first and second class service?

Mr. Ennals: I agree with my hon. Friend's forecast of the outcome and have said this in the House on a number of occasions. However, that aspect does not arise from the Question.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: Is the Minister of State satisfied that payments by insurance companies go anywhere near as far as they could and should towards paying the cost?

Mr. Ennals: Although there has been an increase which will be reflected in the figures for 1969–70, the cost to the hospital service of in-patient and out-patient treatment attributable to road accidents is about £10 million a year.

Mr. Dean: Following on the supplementary question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan), does not the Minister of State agree that there is a case for saying that motor insurance should cover a much higher proportion of the cost of the casualty service than it does at present?

Mr. Ennals: As a result of the order which was introduced increasing the fees for emergency treatment from 12s. 6d. to 25s., the maximum charge for out-patient treatment from £5 to £20, and the maximum charge for in-patient treatment from £50 to £200, there has been a substantial increase, which in most cases is borne by the insurance companies.

Mr. Heseltine: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the widespread interest in this matter, I should like to give notice that I shall try to raise this subject on the Adjournment.

Transplant Operations

Sir B. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many transplant operations have taken place in hospitals in the United Kingdom for each of the last three years; and what was the percentage of success.

Mr. Crossman: Separate statistics for this kind of operation are not collected at present. Some centres have published their results with kidney transplants, but it is too soon to appraise the effectiveness of transplant operations.

Lord Balniel: I share the widespread admiration of the skills shown by those who engage in transplant operations, but


does not the Secretary of State detect a certain sense of unease among the general public about them? Should not the House have the opportunity of debating the moral, ethical and legal implications, and, indeed, the financial priorities within the Health Service of these operations?

Mr. Crossman: As a result of the enterprise of one private Member, we have already had discussions on this question on two occasions. I now have a committee which is looking into the legal position and will advise me. I am hoping to put legislation before the House, if possible.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will the Secretary of State bear in mind that it was exceedingly difficult to make progress on the Private Member's Bill which I was privileged to sponsor on two occasions due to the lack of statistics on cadaver kidney transplants, which account for more than 90 per cent. of the organ transplants carried out in Britain, excluding cornea, during the last five years? Could not the right hon. Gentleman initiate the collection of appropriate statistics in this important field?

Mr. Crossman: On receiving this Question I looked into the matter. Central statistics would not be very meaningful at present because of the very limited number of operations. However, we have a fairly complete oversight of the whole matter. Directly statistics are meaningful we will collect them.

Tonsillectomy (Waiting Period)

Sir B. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the average waiting period for a child in need of tonsillectomy; and what proposals he has for reducing the average such waiting period.

Mr. Crossman: Statistics for children only are not available. The latest information for all patients is that the average waiting time for tonsils and adenoids operations was 22 weeks. The steadily expanding hospital building programme and the more effective use of resources will I hope reduce all waiting times.

Sir B. Janner: Will my right hon. Friend investigate the position in view of the concern which is felt about

children not having this operation when the medical people concerned are advised that it is essential that it be performed as quickly as possible?

Mr. Crossman: I will certainly look into any local case which my hon. Friend has in mind. We in the West Midlands have certainly had difficulties on this subject recently. The whole question of tonsillectomy is still a very controversial one within the medical profession. I hope to get some help from the Medical Research Council in the not too distant future.

Married Women Nurses (Part-time Employment)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he is now taking to encourage the increasing employment of fully-trained married women nurses on a part-time basis in the National Health Service hospitals.

Mr. Ennals: Advice has been given to hospital authorities on recruitment, reception, welfare and refresher training; the number employed is steadily increasing and I do not think that additional action on our part is required at present.

Mr. Hamilton: Has my hon. Friend investigated the practice in certain teaching hospitals in London where part-time nursing is defined as one or two hours less than full-time employment? Is he aware that this is discouraging some married women from taking part in nursing when they are urgently needed in the service?

Mr. Ennals: There are several different definitions according to the needs of the hospitals concerned. We have specially asked the hospitals, in making their plans, to try to make use of the opportunity for service of people who are prepared to do part-time work. In fact, the figures of increase are encouraging. In 1964 there were 29,000; in 1966 the number had risen to 39,000, and in 1968 there were over 44,000 part-time workers in National Health Service hospitals.

Dame Irene Ward: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there are many other questions concerning nursing which require answering? Would he ask his right hon. Friend whether he will


be ready tomorrow to answer the Question that I have put on the Order Paper about the nursing profession in general and their grievances?

Mr. Ennals: I think it is possible that my right hon. Friend has heard what the right hon. Lady has just said.

Mr. Wallace: Is my hon. Friend aware that current Press publicity on deductions in respect of meals from nurses' salaries will have a seriously adverse effect on recruitment?

Mr. Ennals: That is an entirely different question which I certainly cannot answer now.

Mr. Pavitt: As we already employ consultants on three-hour sessions, on three-quarters allowance time, would my hon. Friend consider a similar kind of scheme for nurses?

Mr. Ennals: I will have a look further at ways in which the hospital service can make use of the varying degrees of time that can be made available by people who are prepared to work part-time. As I have said, it needs to fit in with the requirements of hospitals, but hospitals equally must make their arrangements to fit in with the willingness of people who come forward at the times when we want them to come forward.

Mr. Dean: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of the disadvantages of closing the smaller hospitals and concentrating the service entirely on the very large ones will be that we shall lose the services of many women who can work part-time as long as the hospitals are near their homes?

Mr. Ennals: Of course, there always are disadvantages in closing any small hospitals, and the question of staff is one of the factors which are always borne in mind when we have to look at the question of hospital closures. But usually opportunities for employment are found for those hospital nurses who are working part-time in such hospitals as have to be closed.

SOUTH OCKENDON HOSPITAL

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. ARTHER LEWIS: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, whether he has considered the communication dated 1st April from the hon. Member for West Ham, North together with a constituent's representations concerning the administration of the South Ockendon Hospital and, since this is the fourth of such cases outstanding, when he expects to complete his investigations; when he will make an announcement about them; whether the results of his investigations will be made public; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Richard Crossman): I have written to my hon. Friend in answer to his letter, and my present statement is intended also for other hon. Members who have written to me.
An officer of my Department accompanied a special sub-committee of the regional hospital board which visited the hospital last week to examine and report on the general situation at the hospital.
On the evidence of the preliminary report, there is grave overcrowding and also grave understaffing at this hospital. My officer tells me that the staff at South Ockendon, as at other hospitals for subnormals, are struggling against unfair odds. Only after a reduction in the number of patients can they hope to provide a satisfactory standard of care.
I have discussed the matter with the chairman of the regional hospital board and can tell the House that, as a first step, fresh admissions to the hospital have been suspended.
As for future remedial action, this is exactly the kind of case in which I would call on the director of the Hospital Advisory Service I am now establishing to investigate and report to me. As an emergency measure, I am asking the working party which is helping to plan this new service to send a small team into South Ockendon as soon as possible.

Mr. Lewis: First, I thank the Minister both for his kindness in asking your permission, Mr. Speaker, to answer this Question and for the very full letter


which he sent to me by hand. Will he take it that all of us with constituents who have unfortunately had to go into this hospital have nothing but the highest praise for all the staff, who have been working in very difficult conditions?
Can my right hon. Friend do something to help the staff to have, perhaps, better wages or better conditions so that more staff might come in? Possibly the greatest problem here is that new staff will not come in because wages, salaries, working conditions and other related circumstances are not adequate for the work which the staff have to undertake.

Mr. Crossman: I very much appreciate the tone of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, and I support every word he has said about the spirit of the staff. It is my view, as a result of our first report, that nothing less than a reduction in the number of patients at the hospital will really relieve the situation, and I am consulting with the board about the possibility of so doing. Until one has done that, as I said in my main Answer, a satisfactory standard of care is impossible at this hospital.

Mr. Delargy: Will my right hon. Friend take it that, during nearly 20 years as the Member of Parliament for South Ockendon, I have never received one complaint about the staff there and I have never even heard one? Will my right hon. Friend agree, further, that the suspension of admissions to the hospital was already decided about a month ago by the hospital authorities themselves?

Mr. Crossman: Yes, Sir; I said that the chairman had informed me that fresh admissions had been suspended.

Mr. Dean: Recently, the right hon. Gentleman made a grave statement on a related matter. Can he tell the House anything more about the progress which he is making following that Report and the announcement which he has made in reply to the present Question?

Mr. Crossman: Yes, Sir. I am preparing for the meeting with regional hospital boards which are to spend a whole day with me at the end of this month reviewing the situation region by region regarding these hospitals for the subnormal. Meanwhile, I am organis-

ing the working party to set up the directorate of the advisory service, and I hope to announce the names of the people I am bringing in from outside in the near future.

Mr. Atkinson: I associate myself with the comments which have been made about the staff at South Ockendon. Will the working party look into the whole question of nursing homes in the area which are now receiving child patients who are mentally subnormal but who cannot be admitted into South Ockendon Hospital because there is no room there? Will not the decision to suspend further admissions make matters even more difficult in finding accommodation at these other expensive private nursing homes?

Mr. Crossman: Yes, Sir; I agree with my hon. Friend. It will bring home the problem to the local authorities outside which bear a joint responsibility in this matter. One conclusion I have reached is that one does not solve the problem by decanting all one's difficult cases into an already overcrowded hospital. That is not fair on the staff. I can tell the House that nearly £1 million has been spent at South Ockendon on new buildings, but the result has been that new wards for 30 patients have an average occupation of 55. What is the good of spending money on brand new wards and then overcrowding them to such an extent that decent care is impossible?

Lord Balniel: The right hon. Gentleman has said that admissions to this hospital are being suspended. I have no doubt that that is a correct decision, but what special arrangements are being made to accommodate patients in the locality who would otherwise have gone to this hospital?

Mr. Crossman: Perhaps the noble Lord will put a Question down. I am now discussing with the chairman of the regional hospital board the precise arrangements to see whether we can produce at least a reduction of 100 in the numbers at South Ockendon by putting patients elsewhere.

Mr. Driberg: Would it be possible slightly to reduce the number of patients by removing to a more suitable place intelligent but autistic children who can receive no training at South Ockendon?

Mr. Crossman: The question of autistic children is a special one. There are special wards for children there but they are very overcrowded. I should have thought that the children whom we should keep in hospital were precisely the difficult cases. It is the less difficult cases we should keep out of hospital because the less difficult receive no benefit from institutionalisation and should be kept out of hospital at all costs.

Dame Joan Vickers: What is the right hon. Gentleman doing to encourage Leagues of Friends in order to create and maintain contact with the public and also enlist their sympathy? Also, would it not be wise to establish hostels to which many of these people could go when not necessarily needing hospital treatment?

Mr. Crossman: I shall be discussing the question of hostels with the local authorities. I told the chairman of the regional hospital board on Saturday that I wanted to consider the situation not only at South Ockendon but in the whole area and consider the local authority responsibility as well. Leagues of Friends are very useful, but in this particular case one problem is that South Ockendon is outside its—to use the odious term—catchment area, so that there is not the same interest in the locality in relation to patients at South Ockendon. This must be remedied, and I shall try to do my best to see that it is changed.

Mrs. Renée Short: In view of the concern about the care of subnormal patients which has arisen from this case and the other case recently, is it not clear that we must look at the way in which we spend money within the Health Service in order to provide much more money for adequate and up-to-date facilities for subnormal patients? This cannot be done by swapping money from one area of National Health Service expenditure to this one. What is needed is more money for the Health Service. Does not my right hon. Friend consider that we ought to look at the whole question of special hospitals, and we ought to have an opportunity to discuss them in the House?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary questions must be reasonably brief.

Mr. Crossman: The question of subjects for discussion in the House is for

my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I think that the issue here is clear. Certainly, we want more money in the Health Service, but we want also to set the priorities in the balance of financial expenditure right. My own feeling is that this is an under-privileged area which must have relatively more spent on it than in the past.

ANGUILLA

Mr. Henig: Mr. Henig (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if he will make a statement on the new developments in Anguilla.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs went to Anguilla at my request on 28th March, leaving for St. Kitts on 31st March for discussions with the State Premier, and returning to New York on the following day.
On arrival on the island my right hon. and noble Friend had conversations with representatives of all sections of opinion, including Mr. Ronald Webster and other leading citizens, and after discussion signed with them a joint declaration.
This declaration made provision for an immediate period of constructive co-operation in the interests of all the people of Anguilla, and recorded the conviction of those who signed it that this co-operation would only be achieved by working together in agreement and friendship. It established that the administration of the island was to be conducted by Her Majesty's Representative in full consultation and co-operation with representatives of the people. I will, with permission, circulate the text in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Shortly after the return of my right hon. and noble Friend to New York, Mr. Ronald Webster made allegations to the Press to the effect that Her Majesty's Commissioner on Anguilla was in breach of the joint declaration. These allegations were totally unwarranted, but in view of the recrudescence of tension on the island I authorised my right hon. and noble Friend to pay a further visit to Anguilla on 11th April.
His purpose was to persuade the Anguillans to keep to the terms of the joint declaration, so recently negotiated, but owing to what my right hon. and noble Friend has described as a campaign of deliberate misunderstanding, accompanied by threats of violence, he was unable to hold discussions with Mr. Webster and the members of the Council—not all of whom, I may add, by any means share the extreme position urged on Mr. Webster by those around him.
We stand firmly by the joint declaration, which we regard as the best and indeed the only way forward at the moment. The immediate need is to restore law and order on the island. In this task the armed forces and the police are doing an excellent job in very difficult circumstances. This is a prelude to working out a long-term settlement acceptable to all concerned and in particular to the inhabitants of Anguilla.

Mr. Henig: As it is most important for our reputation in the Caribbean that we are completely forthcoming and explicit on the objects of our policy in Anguilla, can my right hon. Friend clear up the mystery surrounding the position of Mr. Lee? Could he also at this late date give some more definite evidence than hitherto about the so-called disreputable elements whose activities presumably provide the sole moral justification for British intervention in Anguilla, and say what will be the attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards the referendum to be conducted by Mr. Webster next week?

Mr. Stewart: The referendum will have no legal standing. The present position is that the island is being administered by Her Majesty's Commissioner, and we shall seek as far as humanly possible to do that in accordance with the agreement which was reached between Her Majesty's Commissioner and Lord Caradon and Mr. Webster and others.
On the position of Mr. Lee, I should say this. Lord Caradon, with my agreement, announced in Anguilla on 12th April that Mr. Lee would be going on leave in due course, and that when he went on leave he would hand over to Mr. Cumber. This statement was interpreted in certain quarters as meaning the dismissal of Mr. Lee. Since that was not

true, I thought it right to make it clear in an answer I gave in an interview that Mr. Lee is still Her Majesty's Commissioner in Anguilla. I shall, of course, see him when he returns home, and I shall want to do that before any final decision is taken about his future.
As to the middle part of my hon. Friend's question, we are now finding, with the progressive collection of arms and with the fact that it has been possible to re-establish the newspaper in Anguilla, which had been forcibly suppressed before we arrived, that our action there was necessary if the people of the island were to have a law-abiding way of life.

Mr. Braine: Can the right hon. Gentleman throw a little more light on this unhappy, muddled and somewhat humiliating affair? What exactly does he mean when he talks about having a talk with Mr. Lee about his future? Is Mr. Lee to return to the island as Her Majesty's Commissioner?
Having neglected this festering issue for so long that military force had to be sent into the island, will the right hon. Gentleman now make it plain that Britain intends to find a political solution to the problem speedily and will not remain in the island for years, as he previously indicated? When will he make a statement about what form a political solution will take?

Mr. Stewart: I shall not modify what I said about the time it may take to reach a final solution of this complicated problem. I admit that there has been neglect, as many commentators have pointed out, for the past 300 years, but I am not prepared to take the sole responsibility for that.
This is a complicated problem. We are dealing with a territory that is part of an Associated State and in which for some time there had not been a lawful administration. I do not think it sensible to say that a final settlement can be reached in a hurry. We must be in consultation with Caribbean Governments about this.
As to Mr. Lee, I want to make it clear that it was first announced correctly that he was going on leave. Normally, when an officer goes on leave he returns to his post at the end of it. That is


why when I was asked whether he was returning I said, "Yes". It might be that I should have given a longer, more temporising, more complicated answer. I did not wish to do so. I said plainly, "Yes", because I did not wish to prejudice Mr. Lee's position, which is still that of Her Majesty's Commissioner in Anguilla. But I shall, of course, want to discuss the whole situation with him when he comes on leave.

Mr. Chapman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who know both Mr. Cumber and Mr. Webster, and know of the dedication of both of them, hope very much that Mr. Webster will now find it possible to begin to co-operate with Mr. Cumber, who is a dedicated public servant who can do a great deal of good for the island? At the same time, will he leave open the possibility in the medium term of finding a West Indian to become Her Majesty's Commissioner in Anguilla?

Mr. Stewart: That is a possibility. I fully agree with what my hon. Friend said in the first part of his question; it is certainly the counsel of wisdom for Mr. Webster. It was open to him to follow that path following the agreement made with the help of Lord Caradon, and I trust that on further consideration he will see the wisdom of doing so.

Mr. Marten: In view of the many conflicting reports about the origin of this tragic situation, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is the Government's intention that Anguilla shall be given the option of being independent, or have the Government made an agreement with Mr. Bradshaw that Anguilla will be returned to the associated status? Could he not send out a senior Cabinet Minister, such as the Minister without Portfolio, to stay there a little longer than the fleeting visits of Ministers and really sort the situation out?

Mr. Stewart: This is a difficult and vexatious situation, but I do not think that we need accept the word "tragic". One of the most important things to notice is that the situation has so far been dealt with without any loss of life, which has by no meals always been the case when we have had to deal with difficult colonial situations. I want that situation to continue. I shall deliberately not try to lay

down what the form of the final settlement must be. We must try, as I said at the end of my original Answer, to reach a settlement that will be agreeable to all parties concerned, particularly to the people of Anguilla.

Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us are getting a little bored by this world-shattering event? If the people of Anguilla want to stew in their own juice, for heaven's sake why not let them and be done with it?

Mr. Stewart: I ask my right hon. Friend to realise that it is not quite as simple as that. If we had done that it would have been a cause for considerable anxiety throughout the whole Caribbean area. The need for action was urged on us very strongly by Caribbean Governments, with whom we shall remain in consultation.

Mr. Thorpe: Accepting that Mr. Webster is not perhaps the most easy person with whom to co-operate, is there any reason why Her Majesty's Commissioner should not be a person acceptable to everyone concerned? Since we are dealing with a situation in which on a minor scale there is the same hatred of federation as there was in Central Africa, is it not time we started political talks to see whether there are alternative forms of association for Anguilla which might well mean changing the present federation, such as the possibility of her joining with the Virgin Islands?

Mr. Stewart: I have said that we are in consultation with Caribbean Governments about a final solution. As to a person acceptable to Mr. Webster, it is not so long ago that Mr. Webster entered into a very clear agreement to co-operate with Mr. Lee. He knew Mr. Lee then and he signed the agreement knowing what it meant. The difficulties now are due to his repudiation of that agreement.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Will the Government do their utmost to ensure that the final settlement is not dictated by gangster influences, whether Anguillan or foreign?

Mr. Stewart: Yes Sir. That is one of the things which we have had very much in mind in the conduct of the whole operation.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Will the right hon. Gentleman use the time which he says it will take to settle this affair to consider how we could better administer these very small colonial and ex-colonial territories? Will he look at the way in which the French undertake these operations? The French seem to administer such territories successfully and more peacefully and do not get into the muddle which this Government get into.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken if he imagines that Britain is the only former imperial Power that has difficulties with some of its small territories. It is quite true that these small territories can present a difficult problem. In some cases we have found the right solution, and we are endeavouring to see what is the right solution in this and in some other cases.

Viscount Lambton: Will not the Foreign Secretary agree that there will be no peace in Anguilla until it is understood there that in no circumstances will the island be returned under the authority of St. Kitts, and will he make that statement today?

Mr. Stewart: I have already made a statement that it is no part of our purpose to oblige the Anguillans to live under an administration that they do not want. I am deliberately not making a statement more precise than that in either direction. This is exactly what we have to examine in the future.

Following is the Declaration:

Declaration

1. We who sign this Declaration believe that what is now needed is a period of constructive co-operation in the interests of all the people of Anguilla.

2. We are convinced that this can be achieved only by working together in agreement and friendship.

3. The administration of the island shall be conducted by Her Majesty's Representative in full consultation and co-operation with representatives of the people of Anguilla.

4. The Members of the 1968 Council will be recognised as elected representatives of the people, and will serve as members of a Council to be set up for the above purposes. This Council may be expanded if so desired by election or co-option.

5. Our hope is that this initial period can start at once to enable a very early return to normality and withdrawal of the Parachute Regiment.

6. There will be further consultations, including consultations with Caribbean Governments, on the future of the island.

7. The following undertaking of the British Government given in the House of Commons has been noted: "It is no part of our purpose to put them [the Anguillans] under an Administration under which they do not want to live".

BOOTH HALL AND MONSALL HOSPITALS (DEATHS)

Mr. Will Griffiths: Mr. Will Griffiths (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the current epidemic involving the death of 30 children from gastro-enteritis at Booth Hall and Monsall Hospitals, Manchester.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Richard Crossman): Yes, Sir. I would wish to express my sympathy with the bereaved parents. I am calling for a report from the Manchester Regional Hospital Board. On the information at present available, there is no evidence of a specific epidemic in Manchester. Gastro-enteritis in infancy may arise from a variety of causes.

Mr. Griffiths: I am sure the whole House will wish to join with the right hon. Gentleman in expressing sympathy to the bereaved parents. My colleagues and I from Manchester wish also to express our sympathy to the distinguished and dedicated staffs of the two hospitals concerned. In view of the public alarm in this matter, will my right hon. Friend consider instituting an inquiry other than that which he has called for from the regional hospital board, and could it not be a public inquiry?
Secondly, will he say why, when there was a similar outbreak on Tees-side at the end of 1967, his predecessor did not publish in full the findings of the subsequent inquiry?
Thirdly, may I ask whether at least some of those findings were circulated to the medical staffs of hospitals with specialised responsibilities such as those of Monsall and Booth Hall?

Mr. Crossman: I cannot answer the third of my hon. Friend's questions without prior notice. In reply to the first two questions, I would not plunge into saying that we ought to have a public inquiry


because until I receive the report from the Manchester Hospital Board I shall not know whether there is an epidemic. A sudden outbreak of gastro-enteritis among small children leading to deaths may occur from time to time without specific cause. Laboratory studies in London and Manchester now suggest that a new variety of one of the many organisms that cause the disease might be responsible, but it is far too early to decide. I ask my hon. Friend to allow me to get the report before making up my mind.

Mr. Kitson: Will the Secretary of State give an assurance to the House that the report will be published? Is he aware that many people requested the publication of the Tees-side Report and feel that if that information had been available to other hospital authorities the problem of cross-drug resistance, which evidently caused this outbreak, might have been overcome? Will he set up a committee to see if an antibiotic can be found which does not involve trial and error in cases of transferable drug resistance, and will he recognise the importance of this serious problem?

Mr. Crossman: The hon. Gentleman is jumping to conclusions and assuming that we know the answer before it has been given. I doubt whether the setting up of a committee will achieve the discovery of this particular antibiotic, although obviously we would all be pleased if that were so. Before we decide that there is a common cause, in the sense of a particular virus, for the death of these 30 children, we must first have the report which will give the evidence.

Mr. Alfred Morris: My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is widespread concern in the city of Manchester about this grievous and tragic series of deaths. Is he aware that it will be thought to be unbelievable if the findings and recommendations of the Tees-side inquiry are not made available to other hospital authorities and in particular to the medical profession at hospitals such as Booth Hall and Monsall? Will he make a further statement on this as early as possible?

Mr. Crossman: I am prepared to get the precise information which the hon. Gentleman asks for and I will write

to him immediately about the Tees-side report. I looked at the report this morning and I have been told by my medical experts that there is no evidence at present that it has direct relevance to Manchester.

Lord Balniel: The whole House will wish to express its distress at this tragedy in Manchester. May I repeat the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson) and ask whether the report of the inquiry into the events in Manchester will be published?
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman reverse the decision of his predecessor and publish the Tees-side report?
Thirdly, may I ask whether, after the Tees-side outbreak, urgent research was undertaken into transferable drug resistance, which is thought to be the cause of the difficulties with antibiotics in coping with this outbreak?

Mr. Crossman: Research is now going on. I will make a further and more detailed study of the extent and coverage of the research on publication. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am in favour of publication unless there is an overwhelming reason against it, and, unless there is some overwhelming reason, I see no reason why I should not publish the report of the hospital board.

Lord Balniel: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my second question? Will he reverse the decision of his predecessor and publish the report on the Tees-side outbreak?

Mr. Crossman: I would like further consideration before I decide to do this. There may be a good reason why it was not published.

MEDICAL SCHOOL PLACES

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Richard Crossman): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement on medical school places.
The Government have now completed their consideration of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Medical Education about the number of doctors to be trained in our medical schools


by the mid-seventies. The recommendations were the result of a careful and comprehensive analysis by Lord Todd and his colleagues. We accept the main finding that, having regard to current shortages and likely future demands, further provision is needed, to produce a substantial increase above the number being trained at present and beyond existing plans for expansion.
The Secretary of State for Education and Science, the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have, in conjunction with the University Grants Committee, considered very carefully what programme for expansion by 1975 can be achieved. The annual entry of pre-clinical students was just under 2,700 in October 1968. While urging the need for a still higher rate of expansion, the Royal Commission reported that 3,700 was the highest practicable figure that could be reached by 1975. The Government agrees this figure as its target.
The plans agreed for reaching this total will be announced separately today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
I have now received most, but not yet all, of the views of the various bodies I have been consulting on other parts of the Royal Commission's Report, including their recommendations on the development of postgraduate medical education. When these necessarily wide consultations are completed I shall make further announcements as necessary.

Mr. Dean: I should like to add the thanks of the Opposition to Lord Todd and his colleagues for their excellent work. We welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement that he has accepted what he has called the target. Will he be a little more specific and say whether this is a firm commitment? To complete his statement, will he say a little more about what he intends to do to ensure that doctors who are already trained remain in this country? I am thinking particularly of career prospects and working conditions for junior hospital doctors. Finally, when does he expect to be able to make a statement on the other parts of the Todd Report to which he referred, namely, post-graduate medical education and, perhaps most important, the future of general practice?

Mr. Crossman: There will be a series of statements, because I want each to be made as fast as possible, but all depend on consultations with many different organisations. A statement about post-graduate education may be a possible start. The career structure is a very different issue, and that should be left for further questioning.
The hon. Gentleman's important question was whether this was a firm commitment. The answer is yes. This means that we are already working out our plans for ensuring the extra 1,000 places to be found in existing medical schools and by the creation of new medical schools, and it is these which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science will be announcing today.

Mr. Woodburn: I welcome the Report and I welcome my right hon. Friend's decision. Will he say whether he had any representations about the curriculum? Many eminent physicians regard the extra year as having been one of the causes of the shortage of doctors, taking the view that the real education of a doctor starts when he has finished his examinations and has begun practical work. These physicians take the view that the year would be far better spent on the practical rather than the theoretical side.

Mr. Crossman: Questions about the curriculum are for my right hon. Friend and not for me. However, I am responsible for the post-graduate stage and I can tell my right hon. Friend that many doctors would disagree with that thinking and would take the view that the eighth year could usefully be spent in research.

Dame Irene Ward: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that women will have a fair share of the increased number of places based on merit and that they will not be restricted as in the past?

Mr. Crossman: I think that the answer is "yes", but I should like to consult my right hon. Friend to be sure. For my part, certainly the answer is "yes".

Dr. Summerskill: When this increase comes into practice, will we still rely as heavily as at present on Commonwealth doctors for the staffing of our hospitals? Are not those doctors needed more in their own countries than here?

Mr. Crossman: One of the chief advantages of this increase will be that we shall thereby increase by one-third the intake of our own students from our own countries and this will mean that reliance on Commonwealth doctors staying here permanently will be decreased. We are not able to decrease it now, because we do not have the growth in the numbers of our own doctors. This will be one of the main advantages of the increase. Lord Todd expressed that view, and I entirely concur.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: Besides those already announced, how many new medical schools will be involved?

Mr. Crossman: That is a question for my right hon. Friend.

Mr. McNamara: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. As the Secretary of State for Education and Science is not now in his place, will my right hon. Friend say where the new schools will be established?

Mr. Crossman: No. It would be a good idea to wait and see what information my right hon. Friend provides and to ask further questions on that basis.

Mr. Lubbock: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in the Interim Memorandum of the Royal Commission it was stated that we would be short of 11,000 doctors by 1975 unless corrective action were taken? Can he give a revised figure, taking into account the increase in the number of places in medical schools? Can he say whether the assumptions on which the 11,000 figure was based continue to remain in force, including that of the emigration of junior doctors?

Mr. Crossman: The Government accept the calculations in broad outline. Of course one cannot be certain that they are right, but we believe that they are modest calculations. I re-emphasise that Lord Todd would have liked us to have set ourselves a higher target, but he came down to earth and calculated the maximum we could reasonably expect to train in the time. We have agreed to the maximum Practicable, but the maximum practicable still leaves us quite a distance short of the desirable.

Mr. English: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that 1975 is rather too early for the setting up of new teaching facilities from the start? Does he not agree that in the circumstances, when there are 10 applicants for every place for a medical student with a shortage of doctors at the same time, we could do with many more teaching hospitals throughout the country?

Mr. Crossman: Yes, my hon. Friend is perfectly right. The plan will consist of two parts. The first is the maximum use of existing facilities. I am asking every teaching hospital in London how many extra places can be created in existing medical schools. Only when all that has been done shall we rely on new medical schools. Nevertheless, the sooner we decide to have new medical schools the better, because it takes years to build them.

Dame Joan Vickers: Will every applicant for a place be considered on the ground of merit and not sex?

Mr. Crossman: That question is rather similar to the one asked by the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward). It had better go to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who is an expert in these matters.

Mr. Christopher Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that regional balance in the supply of doctors is far more important than the actual increase in their number? Is he further aware that many of us on this side of the House felt that it was a grievous mistake to start a new medical school in Southampton rather than in the Midlands and the North where the shortage is greatest? Will he assure us that regional balance will be a major factor to be taken into consideration in deciding where the new doctors shall be trained?

Mr. Crossman: My hon. Friend knows the Todd Commission's Report and the list of places suggested for new schools. That list suggests to me that the Todd Commission recognise the importance of provincial growth and, in particular, of the West Midlands, to which both my hon. Friend and I belong.

Orders of the Day — PARLIAMENT (No. 2) BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 2nd April].

[Mr. SYDNEY IRVING in the Chair]

Clause 5

VOTING RIGHTS OF MINISTERS AND OTHER OFFICERS

Amendment proposed: No. 235, in page 5, line 1, to leave out from the word "session" to end of line 3.—[Mr. Powell.]

Question again proposed.

4.8 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: I was not sure whether to interrupt my own remarks with a point or order, but on balance I have decided to proceed with what I was saying earlier, because I do not wish to hold up the Committee unduly. So conclusive were the remarks which I last addressed to the Committee that I had hoped that it would not be necessary for me to add to them. I hope that it will be well understood in all quarters that on the Amendment and on the whole of the Bill we will all be content if the rest is silence. We would be content if the Bill were dropped at this moment, and I think that that is strictly relevant to this subsection.

The Chairman: Order.

Mr. Foot: I thought that I would be in order in saying that the subsection should be dropped.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman was talking about the Bill in general. He must relate his remarks to the Amendment.

Mr. Foot: A good start would be to drop the subsection altogether, for that would mean the death of the Bill. Most of us accept that the murder of this ailing infant is already being arranged in other quarters.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: Euthanasia.

Mr. Foot: In view of the days and nights that we have endured discussing

this Measure, I would not dignify its end by speaking of euthanasia.
While we would be content for the matter to be left there—for the subsection to be dropped—it is suggested that we should proceed with the Amendment because of a desire on the part of my hon. Friends to discuss it. That is not so. We are proceeding with the Amendment, which was originally moved by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), because the Government, with the agreement of the Opposition Front Bench, think it right that the time of Parliament should be devoted to the Bill. My hon. Friends and I who have opposed the Measure believe that we are wasting our time and that there are more important matters to which the attention of Parliament should be directed.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman has not so far addressed his remarks to the Amendment, which is concerned with the length of voting time.

Mr. Foot: I was getting warmer though, Mr. Irving, and I shall get even warmer. I wanted to clear the ground lest anybody should suggest, as it has been suggested in some quarters, that my hon. Friends and I want to use the time of Parliament discussing this matter. This whole debate could have been avoided, and we have offered ample opportunities to the Government to drop the whole thing——

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not getting visibly warmer. He must come to the Amendment.

Mr. Foot: Recalling our earlier discussion on the Amendment, it might be helpful, as I have set out the background to the opposition which my hon. Friends and I feel to the subsection, if I were to abbreviate my remarks by asking the Minister a series of questions.
Hon. Members who have strayed into the Chamber and who are wondering what is going on may think that this is a somewhat esoteric debate. Perhaps it is, in that having discussed whether or not we should set up a new Second Chamber and having made arrangements for special favours to be provided for ex-Ministers and ex-Law Lords in the other place, we should now be discussing the provision of special arrangements to


extend the period beyond that being offered to other peers in which they may choose whether or not to exercise their voting rights.
We would prefer to remove this objectionable provision from the Bill, although even that would not improve the Measure greatly. Few people still believe that the Bill will ever reach another place. If it did, the provision should be, and I think would, be struck out by the other place. That is all the more reason why we should strike it out now, while we have the chance. If the other place allowed this provision to become law, that Chamber would forfeit its claim to be a revising House, which is the primary claim made for its existence.
4.15 p.m.
Although the Minister could have replied as soon as the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West had moved the Amendment—he could have indicated his willingness to strike out this special favour for ex-Ministers and ex-Law Lords, so enabling us to proceed with the rest of the Bill—he was obviously acting under the instruction that the Bill must go through in precisely the form in which it has been presented. The reason, of course, was that there should be no Report stage.
In paraphrasing my remarks, I will put 10 questions to the Minister. First, what is the origin of this unique feature in our legislation whereby it is proposed that ex-Ministers or ex-Law Lords in the proposed second Chamber shall retain their voting rights for a whole Parliament if they have made the necessary declaration within the extended period—of unspecified length, which, for special reasons, Parliament may allow—beyond that which shall apply to other Members of that House?
Secondly, why have ex-Ministers been selected to receive this special favour over and above the other special favours which they will receive under other parts of the Clause? Thirdly, why has it been thought right to give to ex-Law Lords the same special favours which have been given to ex-Ministers, if that is the case?

Mr. Ronald Bell: When talking about ex-Ministers and ex-Law Lords, would the hon. Gen-

tleman make it clear whether he is referring to "X" Ministers or ex-Ministers?

Mr. Foot: I have not used the term ex-Ministers in an offensive way. The prefix "X" obviously refers to former Ministers and provides me with a brief method of presenting my case, something for which I am always searching.
Fourthly, who made the agreement about these extraordinary concessions? Was it part of the agreement which was accepted by the Opposition Front Bench and the spokesmen for the Conservative Party and other parties in another place? Were they parties to these provisions? This is a matter of some importance in relation to a subject which I shall discuss later.
Fifth, has it been agreed by the other parties to the agreement that the operation of this subsection and the determination of the "special reasons" referred to shall be settled by the House committee, that is, by the committee to be set up in another place to deal with all these matters which are not to be dealt with specifically in the Bill.
Sixth, has there been any discussion about what these "special reasons" may be? The hon. Gentleman said in earlier debate on the Bill that the "special reasons" referred only to particular people and to claims which they might be able to make. But we have not yet been assured that that covers this provision as well as the earlier subsection in which these "special reasons" were invoked. If there has been any discussion about these "special reasons", who discussed the matter and what conclusions did they reach?
Seventh, has there been any agreement about the extent of the "extended period" referred to in the subsection, that is the period in which ex-Ministers, and possibly ex-Law Lords, will have the opportunity of making the declaration that they wish to have their voting rights for the whole of the rest of that Parliament? Has there been any agreement about the period in which they will be able to continue to make these claims?
Eighth, why do the Government think that the committee appointed by the House to fix this matter will be able to do so without any guidance about the


principles to be applied? Will the Minister give us any guidance on this matter? We should like to know whether any suggestions will be laid down as to the rules which should govern the operation of the committee which is to be set up in another place, or whether it is to be left entirely to their whim and decision as to how they are to lay down these rules.
Ninth, will there be any limitation on the number of ex-Ministers and Law Lords who may apply during the extended period for these extended rights throughout a whole Parliament—what might be called the extended benefit? Is the extended benefit to be provided for any number of peers who may make application, or is there to be a fixed number?
The right hon. Gentleman has rightly said that this is an important matter. If the number of the peers applying for the extended benefit and for the right to continue to vote for a whole Parliament were to be large, then that large number would offset and overturn the calculations of the Government in the whole of the Bill. The number of peers who might be able to insist on the exercise of their votes in another place under this subsection, if it is unchanged, might be sufficient to alter all the other provisions of the Bill, and certainly to alter the general intention laid down in the Preamble. Therefore, although at first sight it may appear that the issues involved in this Amendment are esoteric and refined, it may be seen that they can cover the whole intentions of the Bill. Tenth—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I have listened attentively to the questions which my hon. Friend has put to the Minister, but it is only on the ninth question that he has gone to the length of explaining the reasons for the question, his point of view, and so on. Could he not have explained on the previous eight questions the reasons for them, his point of view, and his objections to or support for them? If he does not do so, I do not know whether to support his ten questions or not.

Mr. Foot: I must invite my hon. Friend to read the HANSARD proceedings of our last debate when I sought to give

the background to this matter. I have not today sought to repeat what I then said. Indeed the right hon. Gentleman devoted the bulk of his speech to the general background of the whole matter.
My tenth question is as follows. Do the Government think that these provisions, taken in conjunction with all the others which we have discussed, which may increase or alter the total number of peers, will upset the delicate balance between the parties on which the legislation is based? We should like to have the Government's view as to the numbers which they think might be involved.
These are legitimate questions to ask. If the Government complain that by asking such questions I am carrying the matter into much greater detail than is necessary and am seeking to pin down the Government in a manner which is ill-advised and inexusable, my first retort is that the responsibility must be that of the Government.
Some of us find it remarkable that such a subsection, indeed such a Clause, should ever have been included in the Bill at all. The commonsense is on our side. The commonsense is on the side of those who say that, in discussing an aspect of a future second Chamber—a second Chamber whose size and capacities and nature are left open to widespread dispute—nothing could be more absurd than that we should try to settle in detail the exact manner in which ex-Ministers or ex-Law Lords might be able to extend their voting rights, say, into the latter part of the 1970s, for a start, and thereafter for the rest of the existence of the Chamber in this form.
It is not our responsibility that these matters have to be debated. The responsibility rests squarely with the Government and with the Opposition Front Bench which has connived at the presentation of this matter. Some of us on this side of the House are bitterly opposed to the Measure. Practised observers of our discussions may have seen that there is a lack of acquiescence on the back benches opposite, and therefore I acquit them of wishing to push through this Measure. For the rest, the responsibility is clear.
I wish to emphasise two other aspects. There was some discussion on an earlier occasion about whether the Preamble


went much further than the Bill itself. If one looks at the Preamble and compares it with this subsection, one sees that the whole of the subsection is outside the Preamble. Amendment 235 would bring part of it more within the Preamble. I invite the Committee to look at the Preamble, which says:
to establish within the House a body of voting members exclusively entitled to participate in decisions relating to legislation and other matters, being qualified in that behalf by virtue of their attendance to the business of Parliament or by their official position;…

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay): I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are not discussing the Preamble but Amendment No. 235, which deals with subsection (2)(b).

Mr. Foot: I was seeking to suggest, Mr. Gourlay, that the subsection is outside the Preamble. In order to do that, I had to quote the Preamble and was seeking to suggest that as the whole subsection—in fact the whole Clause—is outside the Preamble, it would make it slightly more within the Preamble if we were to knock out part of the offending subsection. This is what the Amendment seeks to do.
The Preamble sets out to state how the voting rights shall be obtained, sustained and retained by those who hold official positions, amongst others, in the other place. By this subsection we are ensuring that those voting rights will be retained in certain circumstances by people who have exhausted their official position. That is precisely what is intended. It refers to ex-Ministers and ex-Law Lords. I am therefore extremely doubtful whether the provision is within the Preamble. In any case, the Amendment gives the Government the opportunity, which they could have seized before, of trying to put the subsection more in order than it is.
4.30 p.m.
I wish to refer to the suggestion made by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West about the explanation which existed in some people's mind for why we are confronted with proposals of this nature. The right hon. Gentleman made his remarks in dealing with an earlier Amendment, but clearly they apply to this Amendment. If his Amendment were carried, it would, in some

small degree, mitigate the offence. The right hon. Gentleman said that in searching for an explanation as to why we should provide such advantages for particular people in another place at a future date, he could only think that some inducements had been offered to the Law lords by the Government or the committee arranging the provisions of the White Paper or the Bill.
"Inducements" is a very heavy word. It hangs like a pall over our debates. If inducements have been offered, and apparently accepted, according to the right hon. Gentleman, by the Government to the Law Lords to make them agreeable to the Measure as a whole, they should be probed. So far there has been no response from the Government to this question, although they have had opportunities to respond to it. I hope that they will deal with the matter. If they deny the charge that inducements have been offered, perhaps they will, in this fit of candour, go on to explain whether there were any discussions at all with the Law Lords. If, as I fully expect, the Government say that no such inducements were offered, it substantiates further the argument for removing this part of the Bill altogether. The only possible excuse which anyone could see for such bizarre provisions in a Bill like this is that a backstairs agreement was reached in order to get them through.
If the Government say that no prior arrangements have been made and that the matter is to be decided entirely on its merits, then not one hon. Member would say that this subsection should be passed on its merits in the form that the Government present it to us. But that applies to the Bill as a whole. I hope that we do not have to waste any more time on the Bill, but if a single extra minute is wasted on it the responsibility will rest with the Government, who are determined to present it to the House of Commons, and with the Opposition Front Bench, whose members say nothing on the subject whatsoever. The Opposition Front Bench has no advice to give either to the Committee or to the country on this subsection or any other part of the Bill. By their silence, they would permit the Bill to go ahead. But there are some hon. Members who are still determined to kill the Bill, and we hope that we are getting assistance in other quarters than the Palace of Westminster.

Mr. John Peyton: You, Mr. Gourlay, did not have the good fortune to be present when your predecessor in the Chair called the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). So great was the hon. Gentleman's surprise that he should be called at this stage to say something about the Amendment when the Bill was, as he has just pointed out, under threat of death elsewhere, that the Committee and he were both gripped by complete and utter silence. It was easily the most moving thing that I have experienced during the proceedings on the Bill. It lasted for some time, and I am sorry that you, Mr. Gourlay, were not here to enjoy it with us.
I have a certain amount of sympathy with the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), who challenged the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale on being somewhat terse in his important questions to the Minister. Some of his questions were put very rapidly and in such a laconic way that it was surprising that the hon. Gentleman was almost at a loss for a sufficient volume of words with which to express his very important questions.
Although it is purely speculative ground for me, I should like to say something about the relationship between my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench and the subsection. I cannot believe that there is any ground for a paternity order. I am always the first to think the very best of my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench, particularly when they are represented by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson), in whose learning, sagacity and wisdom I have the utmost confidence. I am sure that he would never lend himself to so flabby a piece of drafting as that which we are considering. I agree with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale in expressing the hope that we shall hear from my right hon. and learned Friend a reasonably brief disavowal of responsibility for this rather offensive subsection.
Those who know the extent of my right hon. and learned Friend's abilities, and particularly his ability at the Dispatch Box, believe that it is a great pity that we should be deprived of the benefit of hearing him speak on such a matter as this. I make the sincere plea to my right hon. and learned Friend that before

we part with this important Amendment we shall hear from him, even if it is only to say that he has no responsibility for this flabby thing, so that the charge which the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale so discourteously levelled against him may be squashed.
This Bill is almost unique, even in the horrors of modern legislation, in the amount which it leaves to be settled. The subsection deserves to be singled out for its vagueness and flabbiness. It is odd that in drafting the Bill, which is very vague in most of its Clauses, the Government should have sought to be precise in this instance and that their efforts to be precise should have failed so disastrously and obviously. My hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite have already dealt adequately with the obvious objections. But what is meant by "such extended period"? How is it that there is no limit to the extension? Is there no limit? Can it go on throughout the whole of a Session or, indeed, throughout the whole of a Parliament? I hope very much that the Government will be able to explain to us, before we leave this unpleasant thing, what exactly is meant by that.
Then we come on to this other point, this faithful echo. One of the troubles, it seems to me, is that once an idea occurs in the Bill it has to be echoed at other parts of the Bill. I do not need to remind the Committee that this subsection is a faithful echo of Clause 3(4) which says:
A voting declaration in respect of a Parliament shall not be deposited by any peer after the end of the period of one month from the issue of the writ summoning him to attend the House in that Parliament, or such extended period as the House may for special reasons allow.
Well, such has been the express, dazzling, dizzy process of this Bill through Committee that I have not got exactly in my mind at the moment the utterances which we were privileged to hear from the Government when we were discussing that subsection, and I hope very much that when the Under-Secretary of State answers the debate on this one he will explain in detail what the Government have in mind in talking about
such extended period as the House may for special reasons allow".
I hope particularly that he will tell us what kind of special reasons he has in


mind, because it seems to me to be utterly absurd that we in this Committee should be attempting to state in some detail the ground rules for an assembly which most of us do not wish to see in being at all but which the Government in their anxiety to do something have nevertheless determined upon.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will not quail too much under the heavy responsibility of justifying such really flabby legislation as this. Though there are abundant precedents on the Statute Book in modern times for bad, evil, verbose, prolix legislation I nevertheless think that this subsection with which the Committee is now dealing deserves some special mention in the annals of horror which are the photograph album of our legislative process.
I know that there are many other hon. Gentlemen who wish to speak on this most important Amendment. It is always the case that none of the hon. Gentlemen who support this Bill dares come in here and listen to the arguments—and expose such wavering determination as they have to the awful risk of hearing the overwhelming arguments which are deployed against the Bill. I warmly agree with almost everything which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale said. I think he was unfair to my right hon. and learned Friend on our Front Bench, and I earnestly ask my right hon. and learned Friend, when the opportunity comes, at the end of this most interesting debate on this abominable subsection, to tell us in clear tones that he is in no way responsible for this particularly flabby provision in a particularly woolly Measure.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: I think we are becoming clearer in our own minds as to the fundamental division between the Government and the Official Opposition on the one hand, and on the other, the back benchers in their objection to so many parts of this Bill, and it is because there has been a realisation that the Government are proceeding on the basis that they can retain the traditions of the House of Lords while at the same time giving that House very real power. So many of the Amendments which have been put down and which have been debated, as this one—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, to whom I always listen with great interest; but I really do think that there ought to be more hon. Gentlemen here to listen to him; and so may I draw to your notice, Mr. Gourlay, that there are not even 40 Members here? Can we try to get 40 here to listen to the debate?

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

Committee counted, and, 40 Members being present—

Mr. Sheldon: This division has now become apparent between the Front Benches, acting in agreement, and the back benchers, who have put down Amendments, of which this is a particularly important one; and the division which is now showing itself is that between those who think one can retain the traditions, as they exist, of the House of Lords and at the same time give it far greater power. What many hon. Members who have put down Amendments really feel is that once we change the basis and the rôle which that House occupies—fairly sleepy, not very important, at the present time—and start giving it real power, then the way we devise the rules for that Chamber becomes of exceedingly great importance to us. So we have to scrutinise this Bill in a way we scrutinise few Bills so thoroughly, because of the very great measure of power which we are giving to that place, and we cannot, in terms of that gentlemen's agreement, any longer have that fiction which the Front Benches have in mind for the House of Lords, because we are now creating an animal different from that which has existed in the past. Because of this we have to read even the small print, so to speak; even the two last lines of this subsection.
When we think in terms of the constitutional importance of the virtual creation of a new second Chamber we must remember that at the present time what is going on in France is a similar matter, not all that different from what we are doing. There, they are having a national referendum, having agonies of mind about it, and the President has staked his future political life on it. It must not be thought that we are overstating the case and extending it too far,


because what we are engaged in considering here is as important as what is going on in France. I mention that only as a background to show that there is no need for excuses by those who have been drawing the attention of the Committee to the importance of what we are doing. The fact is that countries not very dissimilar from ours do as much, and in nearly every case far more, when they examine matters as important, as serious, and with such long-term consequences as this Measure.
We must scrutinise the Bill as thoroughly as we can. We are now considering the need to extend the period during which the House of Lords can give certain peers special privileges by enabling them to decide at some stage in the future that they will become voting peers. We know that if a peer is a Minister there is no need for any voting declaration, but ex-Ministers and ex-Law Lords are to be given an extended period in which to make their voting declarations. They are to be given a period which is not stated in the Bill. It may last for many years—perhaps from the beginning of a Parliament to the end of it. This provision could have serious consequences both for ex-Ministers and for the composition of the House of Lords.
One matter which has concerned us in debates on previous Clauses, and will no doubt concern us in discussing later Clauses, is that of patronage. An ex-Minister who has been out of office for a number of years, and who has shown little interest in what is going on in the other place, may suddenly find that because the Government want to redress the balance of their vote in the House of Lords they have decided to make him a voting peer. In the past the system has operated fairly quietly and conventionally on the basis of a gentleman's understanding. What we are now creating, and what we must be conscious of all the time, is a centre of power. The Government may wish to increase their vote, and one way of doing it could be to restore the vote to an ex-Minister, possibly at a critical time in the lifetime of a Parliament.
I hope that the Minister will give us clear and firm reasons why he thinks extra time is needed. Why are we trying

to give this extra advantage to certain ex-law lords and certain ex-Ministers? Is it because someone may have forgotten to fill in his voting declaration? We are talking about capable people who have been provided with offices and staffs to help them do their work. Surely they should be able to perform the simple task of filling in their voting declarations in time? We know the importance of meeting deadlines when we seek nomination at a General Election. We know that there is a deadline, and we take jolly good care to meet it. I see no reason why members in the other place should not be able to take the same degree of care to meet their deadlines, which are far more generous than those which we have to meet.
It is not a question of error, or of a peer forgetting to send in his declaration. If that was all that was involved, the difficulty could be got round by a number of devices and I am sure that the Government would be able to give us details of them. What worries many of us, and what makes the discussion of this Amendment so important, is that the Government have not considered this carefully or if they have they have deliberately left open a loophole so that they can increase the number of their supporters in the House of Lords almost at will during the lifetime of a Parliament. If that is the case, it is extremely serious, because it brings us up against the whole question of the operation of the House of Lords.
As we have learned, we can never discuss anything to do with the new House of Lords without bearing in mind the implications of the payment of £2,000 a year.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: As the salaries of the chairmen of the nationalised boards have been increased, my hon. Friend should bear in mind that the salary of £2,000 a year for members in the other place may be increased pro rata.

Mr. Sheldon: That could be, so perhaps I might refer to a figure of £2,000 with the addendum suggested by my hon. Friend.
We cannot discuss the new House of Lords without bearing in mind the certainty that a large sum of money is to go hand in hand with the job there. Paying members that kind of money means


an extension of the patronage which may be available at any time. We know the reason for ex-Ministers and ex-Law Lords retaining their voting rights. They are supposed to be people with knowledge who need to be there, but I have some doubts about the necessity for giving them the right to vote, rather than merely giving them the right to speak. If we are saying that a vote is essential, what we are really doing is denying the basis of the two-tier system. We are saying that an ex-Minister who has the authority of his office does not achieve that authority if he does not have a voting right, and that seems to me to strike at the whole basis of the new House of Lords.
This subsection will bear very heavily indeed on those who do not acquire the vote immediately but wish to acquire it later, and thus there is here a further element of patronage. There are a number of forms of patronage which we must constantly bear in mind. There is, first, patronage to Members here who behave themselves and are rewarded by being sent to the other place. This is the kind of patronage that concerns me most. Then there is patronage for peers who behave themselves. They can become Ministers or junior Ministers. There is also patronage for Ministers. If they behave themselves, they can retain their voting rights. We must remember that when we talk about voting, we mean money. We mean members getting money. We mean peers and Ministers behaving themselves and getting money. That is what we are talking about.
We cannot introduce changes such as these without bringing about a fundamental change in the way the House of Lords operates. The most damning criticism of the Bill is that the Government and the Opposition have assumed that we can make big changes, and give the other place much greater power, while at the same time retaining the kind and gentlemanly way in which the other place conducts its business at the present time. The lesson of any organisation is that giving power and money means change and to assume that there will be no changes is a grievous mistake which will have serious consequences.
The Amendment brings us again to the differences between Front Bench and

back bench, between those of us who are suspicious and those Front Benchers who talk about the need for a sensible approach. However perfect the Bill might have been, certain parts of it had to be accepted as an agreement in principle, not all of which could be in the Bill. But those who want this sensible approach must be judged on their Bill. If it had been competent, well thought-out and intelligently researched, we might have been more prepared to grant concessions. It is because this is such a wretched Bill and will have such evil consequences that I am suspicious of those things which are not in the Bill.
We are not hearing much about modifications now, for which I am grateful. It is now being realised that a Bill like this is not brought in every two years, that it must be got right first time, yet this Bill seems to have been——

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. We are discussing not the Bill but Amendment No. 235.

Mr. Sheldon: I am sorry for having wandered, Mr. Gourlay.
The phrase about the extended period is so vague that it could have been introduced only on the assumption that it could be modified in two year's time. This euphoria, which was so evident when our debates began but is rather less evident today, is partly responsible for this wording. It was felt that it could be changed if proved wrong. This kind of hopeful assumption is false, and every Amendment should be thoroughly examined to obviate this loose phrasing. This is all part of the "lolly" on which reform was sold to the Lords. They were, understandably, happy that some of their number should receive large sums of money for certain tasks. Yet we have serious objections, because many of us feel that this allows the House of Lords to "muscle in" on the prerogatives of this elected House—something which we strongly oppose.
When serving as such, many Law Lords at present try to retain a considerable impartiality. I accept that some do not uphold these standards, but they are not pertinent to the Amendment. But once they have ceased to face those obligations, they must enter the political strife, which will inevitably be part of


the new House, although it may not have been so evident in the existing House of Lords. They will no longer be able to be neutral on these great issues when the House of Lords is the power base that we know it will be. It is precisely on great issues that their votes will be needed. The Whips will be making all sorts of encouraging noises to get these people to vote.
It is even more important for existing Law Lords, but they are not dealt with in the Amendment. The ex-Law Lords will be the subject of various blandishments to make sure that they vote for the Government. This is what so much of our discussion is about. It was assumed at first that only a gentleman's agreement would be necessary, but we know that, once the vote matters, that will not work. Then, Government and Opposition will want as high a vote as possible. This may mean further patronage, Ministerial jobs, ex-Ministers having the right to vote to make up the numbers. All these are possible weapons.
We have heard, in our discussions on the Preamble, about the hopes for great balance in the House of Lords, but that balance will be an early casualty on any crucial question. A number of ex-Ministers and Law Lords could be given the vote. If it is said that only the House of Lords can do this, my reply is that the managers there will have to be that much more careful to ensure a majority, so as to give such peers the benefit of the extended period.
I do not know what the numbers might be, but that they could be large is obvious. When we think of the number of ex-Ministers and ex-Law Lords in any Parliament, these could swing the balance. The optimistic assumptions which have been made about the House of Lords when not a place of power might prove different from the real situation when the House of Lords becomes a place where power is vitally concerned. I should like my hon. Friend to tell us how many such ex-Ministers and ex-Law Lords as a maximum he envisages in the House of Lords in any one Parliament so that we can assess the number to be added to the Government Vote of 105, or whatever it was, and see how it can change that balance in the House of Lords.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: If the subsection goes through without amendment, it does not matter what the Government may want. There is virtually no limit, because any of those specified could ask for the extension. It does not say that the Government shall have the right to decide. It could be any number.

Mr. Sheldon: This is true. One of the interesting thoughts that come during the hours of night is that the House of Lords might find itself being taken over by the Opposition who then create these Opposition ex-Ministers and there will be an absolute farce in the Palace of Westminster. I accept this is less likely than that the Government will get control and use it for their own purposes. But both possibilities certainly exist.
We all know that attempts to give peers the vote and to prevent peers from voting will be part of the game that will be played, perhaps in unaccustomed circumstances, once the game becomes the rough game that we know it will become. It is all very well having this gentlemanly game they all now play, but once the House of Lords becomes a place of power the gentlemanly game will become an early casualty.
I want to ask my hon. Friend, first, about the numbers involved, and, secondly, about the
extended period as the House may for special reasons allow.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that when considering the question of exemption for sickness and other things in the previous Clause the decision was to be made by a Committee, but, on the question of an extended period, the House as a whole shall decide? It seems very strange.

Mr. Sheldon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing that point to my attention. This seems a yet further anomaly in a much worse than anomalous Bill that a small matter like illness should be decided by a Committee and that, on the question of gerrymandering, the House of Lords would need something more powerful rather than less. This is a point that is well worth putting.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will say something about the consequences for the Scottish


Law Officers and the Scottish peers. It is very pertinent.

Mr. Sheldon: Yes. I will not say that I have appreciated them fully. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows more about that than I do. But that the Government and the official Opposition have not appreciated them fully I accept. This is quite common with so many aspects of the Bill.
The White Paper debates in the House of Lords show the obsession of the House of Lords, quite understandably, with the sharing and, indeed, the grasping of power from the House of Commons. This, above all, really ought to be brought to the notice not only of the House of Commons, because we are more familiar with it, but of the whole country which has perhaps not fully understood the importance of the debates based on wishing to share in the power of the House of Commons. The White Paper debates have shown this again and again.
Finally, I turn to the question of patronage. I have mentioned the various levels of patronage: patronage from this House, patronage of the peers, patronage on Ministers, and patronage of people behaving themselves in the House of Lords. The whole thing is riddled with the desire of the Whips to control the final vote in accordance with their wishes. If we felt sure at any one time that money was not to be part of it, then many of our objections to the Amendment, to Amendments that we have discussed before, to Clauses and Amendments yet to come, would be muted, or at least diminished. Money is at the basis of the discussions that we have had throughout.
The Amendment is most valuable. It has shown that, even in the unobstrusive wording of the subsection, there is danger yet to be found. We should be grateful for the chance to debate it, because it has shown how much greater care is needed in perusing the Bill than some of us, even though we have spent a long time on it, appreciated, and left it to the right hon. Gentleman to find out the possibilities which existed for changes which would be most unwelcome to the Committee.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Airey Neave: I strongly support my right hon. Friend's

Amendment, although I cannot do so with the expert knowledge that he has shown.
In addressing the Committee the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) said that he thought——

Mr. Arthur Lewis: My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) asked me to explain, if reference was made to him, that he had to go out to make an urgent phone call, but he will be back as soon as he can.

Mr. Neave: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I was only going to say——

Mr. Ronald Bell: I wonder whether we could get it clear whether the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) is making a speech on the telephone, which might explain his long absence.

Mr. Neave: It would be interesting to know. I was only going to say that he had said that anyone listening to the debate for the first time might find it rather esoteric. After what we have heard already this afternoon many hon. Members might think that that is a very kind word for the debate. This is a fantastic debate on a ridiculous Clause of a ridiculous Bill. The Clause presents the Committee with a fantastic subject for discussion. Why should ex-Ministers have an extended Session in which to put down a voting declaration? I have not seen one of these voting declarations. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will put a prototype of a voting declaration in the Library so that we know what we are talking about and what form it will take.
But we are reaching a ridiculous stage. There is an air of expectancy in the Committee that something will happen soon to the Bill. I will not develop that further except to say that I think the Under-Secretary will agree that it is a fair point that most of us were under the impression that the Home Secretary was in charge of the Bill. Is the right hon. Gentleman likely to be coming along or only when a count is called, as on the last occasion?
If a Minister resigns or, to use the less charitable word of my right hon. Friend, is "dropped" during the course of the Session, should he be given special


privileges, extra time—perhaps to recover from the shock of what has happened to him—so that his vote can subsequently be obtained to support the Government in the House of Lords? This is basically what we are talking about. It is all very absurd and wrong because, as the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) has pointed out, it opens up an enormous area of Government manipulation and manœuvre. The Government could give these peers a certain advantage over other peers by giving them this right to vote over an extended time.
It is not clear who will decide the grant of extension of time. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) thought that the Clause indicated that the House of Lords itself would decide rather than this leave of absence committee, or whatever it calls itself. I know that references have been made earlier to the powers of this committee, but who, in fact, will decide on an extension?
What happens if a legal problem arises? Are we saying that if a peer who has put in a voting declaration is not granted extra time he can appeal to the House of Lords as a judicial body? That is one of the sillier situations that could arise.
It is quite true that we have gone long past the gentleman's agreement stage, and we must attack very fiercely any suggestion of special inducements in the form of these extra privileges being held out to ex-Minister peers. Until we know the form of the declaration, who is to vet it, and who is to superintend all the circumstances, it is very difficult for us to debate the matter. The Government's responsibility is not just to say that this is a Bill whose principles have to be worked out by the House of Lords or by some committee, but to tell us about it themselves.
I begin to think that behind the last sentence of the subsection is the Government's intention to give ex-Ministers special privileges to vote for the Government during the ensuing Session. I have no wish to embarrass my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson), but we ought to know whether this provision was part of any agreement. In my view, it is very wrong for the Conservative Party to be involved

in such an arrangement, especially when most of the props have been withdrawn. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will indicate whether he agrees with the subsection.
I cannot see any reason for making unique provisions for ex-Ministers. I suspect very strongly that the intention is to bolster up the whole system of a House of Lords based on a built-in Government majority. That is something of which I strongly disapprove, and in that connection I hope that the Minister will reply to the ten questions posed by his hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale. The manner and form of my right hon. Friend's Amendment is extremely valuable in pointing out some of the complications of the Bill.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: A moment or two ago I apologised, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), for his absence. I said that he had been called away to deal with a telephone call to attend another meeting. I can assure hon. Gentlemen that to the best of my knowledge and belief it is not a meeting elsewhere at which the Bill might now well be under discussion.
My hon. Friend raised ten questions and I want to attack him on them, although I do not like to do so in his absence, particularly when I have apologised on his behalf for that absence. With one exception he did not give any reason or any background for his questions. He did not say what was their objective or why he had picked out those ten. We all know that he has been very active in these debates, and I am at a loss to understand why he raised only ten questions. He could have raised at least twenty. I did find another half dozen myself.
Why has my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) not gone into more detail? We all know that he speaks as briefly as possible, but he could have gone into rather more detail. He suggested that the Government of the day might use patronage to get votes. I never thought that he would have dared suggest such a thing. We all know that no Government would do that; and that no one would dare think of offering an ex-Law Lord some job after he had resigned a Ministerial appointment or, as is invariably the case, had


been dismissed. We say that these people resign voluntarily, but we know that they are dismissed.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): Can my hon. Friend give me an example of a Law Lord being a Minister of the Crown?

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General and the Lord Chancellor are Law Lords. If Lord Gardiner were to be dismissed or were to retire, I would regard him as an ex-Law Lord. As the Clause now stands he could, as an ex-Law Lord, opt to go on the voting list, and carry on.

Mr. Ronald Bell: The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) must not be put down by his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who is, I feel, thinking of Lords in Appeal in Ordinary, who are in a special category. The hon. Member for West Ham, North is quite right. He should proceed with his point, and elaborate it.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am very much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I very often attack the legal profession, and it is only right that I should, when occasion offers, pay tribute to it. I have to seek the advice of hon. and learned Members opposite when, on this side, we do not have a Law Officer present. I should like to see with us the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General because, much as I respect the advice of the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General might give different advice—

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Is the hon. Member aware that not just today but on every day since the Government came to power we have not had on the Treasury Bench a Scottish Law Officer because there is not one? Who is to answer the very important Scottish legal points arising from the Amendment?

5.30 p.m.

[Sir BERESFORD CRADDOCK in the Chair]

Mr. Arthur Lewis: This is a tragedy, but there have not been any legal gentlemen on the Opposition Front Bench

either—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—from Scotland.

Mr. Peyton: The hon. Gentleman is being exceedingly unfair to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson), whose qualities I am sure he would not wish to challenge. My right hon. and learned Friend comes not from Scotland but from as short a distance away as Epsom. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) wished to make a pithy protest, which he felt sure that the hon. Gentleman would wish to endorse, against the absence of any Scottish Law Officers to advise the Government on the very important issues concerning Scotland which arise on the Amendment.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I immediately corrected myself. I rarely make a mistake, but on this occasion I said, "no legal gentlemen". I then corrected it and said, "from Scotland". I accept that we would have liked someone here to advise us on the issues affecting Scotland, because it is important to the subsection.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale did not go into as much detail as he might have done. He referred to possible patronage and implied, without giving details, what could happen. He mentioned something about salaries. I interjected and said that there are things other than salaries. One of these law leaders or ex-Ministers could be dismissed as unsatisfactory in his Ministerial office, and he might then hold on until a ticklish voting situation arose. The Whips might then say, "We need a few extra votes". The ex-Minister might well say, "There is a job going as chairman of one of the nationalised boards. It is a much better paid job than the post I had as Minister. If you can offer me the chairmanship of one of the boards, I might well consider asking the House to give special reasons why I should be allowed this opportunity." Would those be special reasons? If the ex-Minister said that he wanted to take on a job as one of the advisers to the Industrial Court, would that be a special reason which would allow him to seek this extension of time in which to apply for voting privileges?
The subsection says that this is
subject to subsection (3) of section 3 of this Act".


This means that it is subject to the age limit of 72. Does this mean, as the subsection stands, that if one of these ex-Law Lords or ex-Ministers in the Lords, having held on long enough and having not received the patronage which he had hoped for—some sinecure or well-paid job—finds that he is reaching the age of 72 and that he would not be able to ask for the period to be extended for special reasons—I see that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is screwing up his face as though I have not made the point clear.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: indicated dissent.

Mr. Lewis: Could an ex-Minister or an ex-Law Lord who had been dismissed from office or who had resigned and who within a month had not exercised his option to claim his vote say, "I have special reasons why the period should be extended. The special reasons are that I am 71 today and will be 72 in 12 months' time and must get my application in"? Can he use as a special reason the fact that it happens to be his seventy-first anniversary?
One month is the period suggested as the normal period in which the extension should be asked for. That period is ample enough. Nowadays we hear much about a cooling off period of 28 days, "In Place of Strife", and all that. If an industrial worker is to be allowed a cooling off period of 28 days, 28 days should be long enough for an ex-Minister or an ex-Law Lord to cool off.

Mr. Peyton: Does the hon. Gentleman think that some of his hon. Friends now missing from the Front Bench would require 28 full days to cool off?

Mr. Lewis: The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), who is always helpful, will agree that this does not apply exclusively to ex-Ministers on this side of the House. There are also ex-Ministers on the benches opposite. No doubt the ex-Ministers on both sides will be queueing up if and when the occasion arises for them to want one of these peerages of first creation. I imagine that this would apply to some of the Liberals, none of whom is now present. If within a month these ex-Ministers could not obtain some plum directorships or other well-paid employment, they might well think, "I have not been able within a

month to obtain a directorship or other well-paid job. I will ask the Patronage Secretary what he can do about it. Can he put me on a board? Can he give me one of these nationalised chairmanship jobs? In exchange I will offer my vote. I will tell him, 'You have only 28 days'." If the Amendment is not carried, such an ex-Minister would be able to say, "I can put forward special reasons why I should be allowed to seek my voting rights after the expiration of 28 days." He might give as reasons the fact that by that time he would have attained the age of 71, or that most of the sinecures he was aiming for had gone, or that time was running on, or that there was likely to be a change of Government and that even on the political stakes he might well have lost the chance of getting another well-paid job.
There is a need for the Under-Secretary to explain what the special reasons are which will permit such a peer to have a cooling-off period of more than 28 days. The Minister for Economic Development and Production, or the Minister "In Place of Strife"—I do not know what they call her; they change the name from time to time—no doubt has hit upon this period of 28 days, because it seems to be occurring now in everything. Twenty-eight days is reckoned to be a sufficient period for an industrial worker to cool off. The subsection in fact does not say "28 days". It says "one month", which is near enough 28 days.
I think that one month should be a sufficient period for such a noble Lord who had previously been a Minister—perhaps the Minister of Economic Production, whatever they might call the Minister for Strife—to cool off in. She might well say, after this period in the House of Lords, "I have begun my period. I have had my first creation. Having had my first creation, I shall now wait for the month to see what happens". She might then succeed Mr. George Woodcock—who knows? She might be called Lord Barbara of Castle or Lord Castle of Barbara. She might then think to herself, "There is a good job going on the industrial relations board". She might then wait for a month and then not be offered the job. Then she might go to the Patronage Secretary and those people who run the patronage set-up and suggest, "George is getting old. I am much younger than


he is. As we have now got to opt for it before the age of 72, what about it? Can you give me this industrial relations board position? If you can, I will wait and then I will offer my vote to you".
But, of course, there might be the other side of the matter. I think it was my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State who shook his head when I mentioned Law Lords. But I can remember one case of a Law Lord very well. He was not at the time a Law Lord; he was the Attorney-General in this place. He then went to another place, where he was an ex-Minister. He then resumed practising at the Bar, and for a time I do not think he knew whether he was on one side or the other. I think he switched backwards and forwards and then went on the cross-bench, where I believe he still is. Eventually he went into business and he now has a lot of directorships [Interruption.]
I am talking about Lord Shawcross. I did not think any hon Member, particularly in the legal profession, would have wanted me to name this gentleman. I thought it was plain enough. However, if the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) is so backward about the legal profession, I will tell him that it was Lord Shawcross who was an Attorney-General and who subsequently went to another place. I am not saying that he would do as I have suggested, but he might wait 28 days and if there were an election pending he might think "Let us wait. A Lord Chancellor might be needed. The other party may be short of legal gentlemen, and if I switch sides I can become Lord Chancellor."
I am not denigrating the legal profession, but it is a fact that the greatest prize in the legal profession is the position of Lord Chancellor of England. Let us think of a name which is not connected with the legal profession. Let us take, for example, Lord Smith. I do not think the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) is a member of the legal profession. Let us suppose that we had a Lord Smith. I can imagine him going to another place as an ex-Minister, or even not as an ex-Minister, and saying, "I have got a month. If I wait long enough and do not offer my vote to either side, as there will be an election one day and as I am a qualified member of the legal profession

they may offer the job to me as they are short of legal gentlemen."[Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh but, in tact, this happened quite recently when there was a shortage of legal gentlemen in another place. Lord Gardiner was brought in and made Lord Chancellor. This could well happen. Therefore, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne on this point.
5.45 p.m.
This meeting which my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale is attending is taking much longer than I believe was expected. The meeting evidently has found trouble not only with the Clause but probably with the whole Bill.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that there are perhaps special reasons for this extension of time of the meeting which his hon. Friend is attending?

Mr. Lewis: I am sticking religiously to the Clause, because I should be out of order if I were to do otherwise. The Clause refers to a period of one month and it might be that the meeting which my hon. Friend is attending will last for such a period; I do not know. All I hope is that the meeting reaches a conclusion soon. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend is not present so that I shall have to attack him in his absence.
It is a pity that he never went into detail to explain why he selected those 10 questions. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne raised a number of points, but my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale did not go into detail. Why did he select the question of patronage and mention only the salary of ex-Ministers? Did he mean that the £2,000 was the deciding factor? It might be £2,000 plus. One of the reasons why the figure of £2,000 was originally suggested was to relate it to other salaries. We have now had the report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes on higher executives' pay, and this might be used as an argument.
To get back to the Amendment, which seeks to leave out
or within such extended period as the House may for special reasons allow".
I should like the Minister to explain what this means. I may support this Amendment, but I would not want to do so if my hon. Friend could explain


the meaning of these words to me. Do they mean that the special reasons will include sickness? I shall be surprised if they do, because I believe there is an earlier provision covering sickness. Suppose we were to have a Tory Government. I hope this will not happen, but it could do. Such a Government might last a few weeks or months, and then there would be a flood of Tory ex-Ministers fleeing the country, perhaps to one of the warmer climates. Would it then be possible for them to use as a special reason the fact that they had been away from the House for a period longer than 28 days? When we discussed the previous Clause we were told that reasons such as leave of absence would be covered. Does this apply only to Ministers? The subsection refers to Ministers. Are we giving special privileges to these ex-Ministers and ex-Law Lords, and anybody who was on the Ministerial payroll?
I have just realised something; this is another question that I must ask my hon. Friend. Subsection (1,a) refers to
any office in respect of which salary is payable under the Ministerial Salaries Consolidation Act, 1965".
Does that apply to the whips? Whips are paid. Some whips in this place might do their job so badly that they are promoted to the House of Lords. Will they have 28 days, or a month, in which to decide whether they should go on the voting list? Perhaps they, too, can ask for an extended period for special reasons. Suppose that the whips did a tour round the world on the high salaries received while they were whips and then returned and decided that for special reasons they should ask for the vote. The provision could apply to anyone on the Ministerial salary list. There are about 110 Ministers in this House; I do not know about the other place.
Subsection (1,b) refers to
any high judicial office within the meaning of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act…".
Perhaps my legal friends can help me here. I assume that the phrase "any high judicial office" refers to the law lords, judges, lords of appeal and other legal luminaries. Let us take the case of a judge who is a peer of first creation. He is there a month and then says, "Being a judge, it would be hardly the

thing for me to claim my vote." He would wait, knowing that after the month had passed he might be able to put forward special reasons why he should be allowed the extended period. What would be the special reasons in his case? I assume that he would say that he did not want to claim his vote at the time because he was still a judge and that taking an active part in politics was not quite the thing and it was not wise for him to take his vote.
But he may have political opinions, although I do not say that there are any judges who have. He may see the chance of the Government which he supports, or opposes, being in need of his vote, or he may wish to vote against the Government. He may say, "I shall claim the benefit of the provision about special reasons and claim my vote." I assume that one of the special reasons would be that he never opted to use his vote within the 28 days because he thought that it would be infra dig. He might say that he did not want the vote at the time because it would have interfered with his impartiality as a judge.
What happens if 12 or 18 months afterwards—[Interruption.]—I do not know whether the meeting elsewhere has finished; probably it has and soon my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale will return from No. 10 Downing Street, or from wherever the meeting was held—the judge says, "I have decided to opt for using my vote. I shall ask for the provision about special reasons to be invoked"? How will the Government respond? If he declined to have the vote within the month when the conditions were such that he could have claimed it without difficulty and then a year or two afterwards there has been no change in his situation, will he be able to say, "I claim the vote for special reasons" and put forward the same reasons which he could have put forward two or three years before? Will they be allowed as special reasons?
The Bill allows ex-Ministers and ex-Law Lords privileges which are not allowed to other peers. This leads me to my desire to protect the right of the ordinary—if I can call them that with no disrespect—noble peers who are not ex-Ministers or legal luminaries. Will certain people be given privileges which are not given to ordinary peers? As the


Bill is drafted, that would seem to be so. Unless the Amendment is accepted, the ordinary peer will be at a disadvantage in relation to ex-Ministerial peers and legal peers. That is not fair. Why should we deprive the ordinary peer of first creation or any peer entitled to vote, and allow ex-Ministers and former and current Law Lords to opt for the vote at any time that they like provided they have not reached the age of 72?
Unless we have a satisfactory explanation from the Minister in answer to the ten points put forward briefly by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale, the half-dozen points put forward even more briefly by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, and the half-dozen points on which I have only touched, I must support the Amendment in the Division Lobby.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: The Amendment is no mere verbal finesse but raises a point of real substance about which the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) has spoken very lucidly and on which he has put forward some valuable points. However, he would be the first to agree that he has not covered all the points.
The broad aspect which appeals to the Committee is that the subsection appears to confer a special privilege—or "special indulgence" would perhaps be the right expression—in the arrangements made for all other peers than those comprehended within the subsection. The significance is that the Bill proposes a Chamber with certain balances. One thinks of the expression "checks and balances", but there are very few checks and even the balances may prove illusory particularly without the Amendment. Without some discipline, the Government might enjoy an excessive patronage.
One of the checks is that in Clause 5 and those provisions relating to the voting qualification. The ordinary member of the upper House will have to go through certain drills. They are not very exacting: something will have to be done in one month. That is normally time enough for politicians to collect their wits—although some have been known to take much longer—and there is considerable bipartisanship over this Measure.

Clause 5(2) would exempt ex-Ministers and ex-Law Lords from the rigour of the temporal provisions applying to others. There are many objections to that, and the general objection is its effect on patronage.
But there are certain particular questions which need to be answered, although the state of the benches opposite, particularly the Front Bench, makes me despair of getting answers. With this Government, one cannot tell where answers will come from, but I am puzzled to know—

Mr. Peyton: Has my hon. and learned Friend observed that on the Front Bench opposite there is no Minister—only a Whip, who would not normally speak? In view of the importance which the Government appear to attach to the Bill, one would expect at least one Minister constantly there. One is immensely sympathetic to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who has just this moment returned, for the undue share of the burden which he is expected to shoulder.

Mr. Bell: That is a valid point, which was cured in part as my hon. Friend made it. We all have great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman, who has to listen to all our speeches. This gives his replies a continuity of argument but must also impose a physical and perhaps mental or nervous strain which we should have liked distributed more widely among Her Majesty's present advisers.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) first mentioned the uncertainty latent in the phrase "special reasons". This is one of those troublesome phrases which has appeared in other Acts and always led to trouble. This Bill has no definition and my right hon. Friend asks whether the special reasons were ad hominem. Will the Under-Secretary of State be telling us, in whatever tongue he finds congenial, whether they are? I suggest that they should not be but should be inherent in the nature of the fault. After all, we have a lot of consideration of this phrase in the road traffic Acts, a good deal of judicial consideration has been given to it and some interpretation has been reached. In the absence of any special provision in the Bill, I presume that those interpretations will apply here.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: How do the road traffic Acts explain the phrase? That will help us to decide—

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Beresford Craddock): Order. We are not discussing the road traffic Acts, with respect.

Mr. Bell: It was an attractive invitation, but not one to which I propose to accede, beyond what is relevant. For one thing, the last road traffic Act contains a definition which removes the parallel.
I was addressing myself to the general consideration of the phrase which had emerged from those decisions. In the case of Whittall and Kirby, the leading case on the meaning of "special reasons", it was said that it should be a circumstance peculiar to the neglect as distinguished from the offender or the person guilty of the neglect. It was said:
A special reason is one which is special to the facts of the particular case, that is, special to the facts which constitute the offence"—
or, in the context of this Bill, the neglect. Financial hardship has been held not to be a special reason. This answers some of the questions of the hon. Member for West Ham, North, who I thought over-stressed the significance of money—although I see that there are financial considerations. But it has been held that financial hardship is not a special reason.
Nor is a long and good record. Nor is forgetfulness or carelessness. That has been held not only in the context of the road traffic Acts but also in the almost exactly similar context of the national insurance Acts, where there are time limits for the making of claims, and the commissioners have had to consider, in an administrative context—as close as one can get to a political context—what constitutes a special reason for delay. It was held that neither forgetfulness nor carelessness could help.
Going back to traffic, it is not a special reason that the motorist realises his incapacity and stops his car—this I am sure could be construed by analogy in the context we are considering—or that the car is stationary and incapable of being started, or that the accused is a lorry driver and drives for his living.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman saying that they are or are not special reasons?

Mr. Bell: They are not special reasons. On the other hand, if a peer, unknown to himself, was suffering from diabetes and had taken only a moderate amount of drink, that would be a special reason, as I apply the road traffic decisions to the provisions of Clause 5.
The Committee will realise that there is ample room for varying interpretations to be applied as to what would amount to a special reason. I at once concede that we are here dealing with the House of Lords, which is the supreme court of appeal from all other courts, and who better than they to decide on special reasons? In matters of administrative delays and the personal variations of members putting forward various reasons for delay, this exalted machinery might seem to be a little detached and too grand, but, fortunately, their lordships recently decided that they were not bound by their former decisions, and that the doctrine of stare decisis would in future be determined with laxity in their lordships' House. I suppose this is what the Under-Secretary and the Government had in mind, if they had anything in mind—which I begin to doubt. They have no doubt realised that, because the House of Lords has departed from the rule of stare decisis, it might operate this provision without getting into a more absurd mess than it otherwise would.
I shall expect from the Minister an answer to all these questions. I hope that he will not give the answer which he gave in the last debate, that what the Government wanted was flexibility. This is a splendid answer for a Minister who does not know the answer, and who knows that those under whose instruction he is acting do not know the answer and do not care anyway, because they are determined to drive the Bill through without amendment.
The whole procedure is like a charade; inflexibility in debate and flexibility in conception. Hon Members move Amendments and speeches are made from either side all supporting the Amendment. We know that no one will speak against this Amendment until the Minister replies, and he alone will oppose it and talk about flexibility, and so hope to avoid answering the ten questions put to him by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), the points put forward by


my right hon. Friend, by the hon. Member for West Ham, North, and those which I am engaged in putting forward. We shall be told that the Government want flexibility; they have given careful thought to it; they do not know what it means but they are sure that it will work very well. What that means is that the Government are absolutely resolved—it is the only thing which they see with absolute perspicacity, clarity and determination—not to have a Report stage. For this reason the hon. Gentleman will oppose the Amendment.
I come back to the more general questions of substance which arise on the Amendment.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned only one special reason, the man suffering from diabetes who has had something to drink. Is this the only special reason that those of their Lordships who are ex-Ministers will be allowed to bring forward?

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Bell: The special reasons that I considered were confined to drinks, drugs and diabetes simply because I was considering decisions under the road traffic Acts which tended to be about those matters. It is under the road traffic Acts that we have the advantage of decisions of the High Court on the meaning of "special reasons". It is not for me to say, and I do not intend to say, whether the special reasons which will arise on Clause 5 in another place would be reasons about drink, drugs and diabetes. Obviously, I cannot say that; I would hope not, but we must be prepared for the worst; and I was trying to define what I thought might happen if this unhappily came about—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The hon. and learned Gentleman has misunderstood my point. I understood entirely his point about drinking and diabetes, but, as I have castigated my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), I was hoping that I should not have to castigate the hon. and learned Gentleman for not going into more detail about other special reasons which could be used by noble

Lords as an argument for an extended period.

Mr. Bell: I see myself becoming a whipping boy between you, Sir Beresford, and the hon. Member for West Ham, North, castigated or flagellated by one if I go into the special reasons and by the other if I do not. I must leave these details on one side and come back to the main considerations, as distinct from the interpretative considerations, which arise from the Amendment.
The purpose of the Clause is to accommodate what have been described as ex-Ministers and ex-Law Lords. There has been too much emphasis in our debate on the Law Lords and the ex-Law Lords. The side-note to Clause 5 reads:
Voting rights of Ministers and other officers.
The Clause is really about Ministers. Although the wording unquestionably includes those who hold or have held high judicial office within the terms of the appellate jurisdiction Acts, I think that they are an addition and that the Clause to an overriding extent is about ex-Ministers. The whole conception behind the Bill is a welfare service or safety net for ex-Ministers. That, no doubt, is the reason for the interest shown by the Secretary of State for Social Services, whom we have seen from time to time in the Committee—not for some little time—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: He is almost statute-barred now.

Mr. Bell: As my right hon. Friend says, he is almost statute-barred. He would have to show a reason if that were so—I hope that it would not be drink, drugs and diabetes. Basically, the subsection which is sought to be amended is a benefit clause, a charitable disposition in favour of ex-Ministers, those whom the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale—whom I am happy to see back among us, even if perhaps only fleetingly—has described as having been dropped during the life of a Parliament. I assume that he was referring to those Ministers who had been dropped, but not dropped into the Department of Economic Affairs. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will tell us whether a Minister in the Department of Economic Affairs counts as a Minister or as an ex-Minister. This is a


matter on which we should welcome some clarification from him. If a Minister is dropped, or shunted into the Department of Economic Affairs, and is in the House of Lords, he has to decide what he is to do. If he fails to make up his mind within the month that is allowed for him to do so—

Mr. Powell: It is a month in the new Session after the Session in which he ceases to be a Minister.

Mr. Bell: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend. I was guilty of doing what nobody should do in Committee on this Bill—I was indulging in shorthand; I was cutting my phrases short. I suppose that any Minister who becomes an ex-Minister has a vote for the remainder of the Session and then has a month in the next Session in which to stake his claim.
Already in having a vote for the remainder of the Session in which he is dismissed or dropped, or in which he resigns, he has a privilege over other members of the House of Lords being peers of first creation. But at the end of that Session he goes into the same condition as them in that he has a month in which to make up his mind. If they fail in a month, they have lost their situation for that Parliament, but if an ex-Minister fails within a month, he has this rather remarkable indulgence, which my right hon. Friend wants to leave out of the Clause.
The first question which immediately occurs to anyone is why they should have this indulgence. One can understand that, being Ministers and being dropped in the middle of the Session, they would carry on until the end of the Session as official voting peers under the provisions of Clause 2. That is comprehensible. But what is the reason why in the next Session, if they have failed to make their claim within a month, they have this special indulgence?
It cannot be that ex-Ministers are known to be indecisive or dilatory. I hope that the Under-Secretary is getting the answer to this, because this is the 64-dollar question. Is it because it is known that ex-Ministers are, by virtue of their ex-occupation, indecisive and dilatory? Are they punch drunk? Is it

to give them an opportunity to recover from the buffeting which they have received from in front and from behind? Or is it thought that, having been dropped, they will have gone shooting tigers, or for a long journey around the world and will want to come back and have special indulgence given to them? Or is it, as so many have suspected, that the Government are anxious to have a sort of ex-payroll vote in their support, that they do not want to lose the votes of ex-Ministers in the Upper House whom they may hope still to govern, to influence, to control by all kinds—

Mr. Angus Maude: Has not my hon. and learned Friend considered the fact that, in view of the things ex-Ministers say about the Government, this is unlikely to be a fruitful source of support?

Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend appears superficially to have made a strong point, but I fear that people are sometimes bold in utterance while still having hankering longings for patronage. They forthrightly criticise their former colleagues and still hope to rejoin them, or even sometimes to supersede them.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is not my hon. and learned Friend understating his case? Is it not clearly the fact that Ministers do not have to become ex-Ministers before starting to criticise the Government? They have it both ways.

Mr. Bell: As always, my right hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. I suppose that we ought to criticise this provision because it does not give existing Ministers a month in which to decide whether to support the Government.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: A cooling-off period.

Mr. Bell: A cooling-off period of a month on any issue to decide whether to support the Government, and if they cannot decide whether to support it, to claim special reasons for an extended period to make up their minds so as to be able to see which way the cat will jump before deciding whether to jump on or off the bandwagon.
I return to the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) was making. It is ex-Ministers who are most subject to this


temptation, because they are in a kind of limbo.

Mr. Nigel Birch: Oh.

Mr. Bell: I feel very much inclined to ask my right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) to explain that intervention.

Mr. Birch: My hon. and learned Friend is causing me the greatest pain. That was why I gasped in anguish. I do not feel myself to be in limbo.

Mr. Bell: My right hon. Friend has been so long in limbo that he has made himself happy and domestic there. I am thinking of those more recently dropped into that state. In considering the Bill, one inevitably considers the fate of those whom one has before one's eyes. After all, we have to bear in mind that with the present Prime Minister we have ex-Ministers scattered around like confetti. They either gravitate to the Department of Economic Affairs, which is the repository of the circulating scrap of the Government, or, in this new world which we are envisaging and which the Bill is about, they make the nominees of the Government in the House of Lords. What we are talking about on this somewhat narrow Amendment is one of these ex-nominees who has lost his Government job, whose inadequacy has at last been recognised and who is out, perhaps punch drunk or whatever it is, and who fails to register as a voting peer within a month. The question is what is to be done with him.
The Government obviously cannot bear the thought that this possible vote may be lost. He is therefore given a longer opportunity of making a voting declaration. We do not know anything about these voting declarations, as the hon. Member for West Ham, North pointed out. Just as we thought of adjourning our debates earlier to see the attendance document of another House, one wonders whether we ought to see a voting declaration before we proceed further. It may be a very complicated document and it may take some ex-Ministers a month or longer to understand it. We do not even know in which language it is to be. If it emanates from the present Administration, it will probably be in dog licence Latin.
There is the problem we face and its significance has occurrred to all hon. Members who have considered the Amendment: it is the effect of the Government's patronage on the Upper Chamber as it would be constituted. Our fear is that, without the safeguard of the Amendment, the House of Lords will become completely servile to the Government. It is obvious that the promoters of the Bill do not like the independence of the second Chamber and want it to be subservient to the Executive. The time limit for claiming voting rights is a diminution of subservience to the Executive and because of that the Government want to waive it in respect of ex-Ministers. That is the only explanation for this provision.
I see the Under-Secretary sitting on the edge of his seat waiting to leap to his feet to reply to the discussion. Does he intend the debate to be terminated after his remarks? There will be great resentment if that happens. After all, no Scottish voice has been heard on this issue.

[Mr. HARRY GOURLAY in the Chair]

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Hear, hear.

Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) is waiting, anxiously and patiently, to express the views of Scotland, particularly about the position of law lords of Scottish origin. The whole question of regionalism is raised by this provision.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that legal and other matters arose when we debated the previous Clause and that not one Scottish voice had an opportunity of being heard?

Mr. Bell: I am well aware of that.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman also aware that other regional areas, such as Merseyside, will be disappointed if voices are not raised on their behalf?

Mr. Bell: I do not demur. I was about to say that in addition to no Scottish voice being heard, we have not had the benefit of legal advice from the Government on a matter which is half legal and


half substance. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson) has previously given his views about the phrase "special reasons" and on this occasion we are entilted to the advice of the Attorney-General. This is not an English but a United Kingdom Bill.
We note a certain impatience on the part of the Executive in the conduct of these operations. It is said that the Opposition Front Bench have reached some agreement about the Bill, but my right hon. Friends who represent the official Opposition have not given us their view. It seems that the Government are tolerating this back bench debate but intend that we shall be voted down, whatever we say. I have no doubt that the Under-Secretary will talk of flexibility and that a Government Whip will then rise to put the Question.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: Even more serious is the omission of any voice representing the Church Commissioners because the provision applies to the lords spiritual, too. Will not the bishops come within the special considerations which we are discussing?

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend is right. We shall later discuss my Amendment to omit subsection (4) from Clause 6, which deals with the application of Clause 5(2).

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. We are discussing an Amendment to Clause 5. Clause 6 does not arise at this juncture.

Mr. Bell: I have not so far referred to Clause 6 or the lords spiritual, Mr. Gourlay, because this matter will be more appropriately debated when we reach that part of the Bill. However, my hon. Friend is correct in that the wording of Clause 5(2) is made to apply later to the lords spiritual as well as to the lords temporal. It is, therefore, surely right to point out what the full effect of the Amendment is likely to be, not only in respect of Clause 5 but in respect of later provisions.

Mr. Powell: Is my hon. and learned Friend right, remembering that Clause 6(4) clearly imports Clause 5(4); in other words, it treats the holders of the five sees there mentioned as if they were

holding Ministerial offices? On the other hand, would not my hon. and learned Friend agree that when they cease to hold those sees, on retirement, they are not peers of first creation and that it is therefore arguable whether Clause 5(2) would apply?

Mr. Bell: An extremely interesting point has been raised which I hope we are in order in discussing. I understand that Clause 6 applies Clause 5(1) to the lords spiritual but that it does not apply Clause 5(2) about which we are speaking. After all, Clause 6(4) refers to
… Lords Spiritual who are Lords of Parliament as they apply to peers of first creation, and as if the sees of Canterbury, York, London, Durham"—

The Deputy Chairman: Order. Can the hon. and learned Gentleman tell me how his remarks relate to the Amendment under discussion?

Mr. Bell: Without difficulty, Mr. Gourlay. Clause 6(4) refers to
Sections 2 to 4 and subsection (1) of section 5 of this Act …
applying
… to the Lords Spiritual who are Lords of Parliament as they apply to peers of first creation …
and I referred to
… the sees of Canterbury, York, London, Durham and Winchester …
as being
… offices to which the said section 5 applies.
If that be so, on resignation or retirement from one of those offices, I assume that the holder of one of those sees, though not the bishops, would come within the definition in Clause 5(2).
It is an arguable point; I am not saying that it is right or wrong. I was not going to develop that argument, but my hon. Friend may wish to do so. In response to your invitation, Mr. Gourlay, I have merely indicated the procedural relevance of certain provisions of Clause 5(2). It could be that certain considerations relating to lords spiritual are relevant whether the words contained in the Amendment should be struck out.
There is little I can add. I have not sought to cover the wide conspectus which was covered by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, who ended up with his ten commandments. I fear that he will


obtain little satisfaction, and certainly no tablets of stone—unless the tablets of stone are thrown at him, which is quite possible.
I hope that I have said enough to indicate some of the disquiet felt on both sides of the Committee about the sinister implications of the words which my right hon. Friend seeks to leave out. It comes back to the anxieties which are felt about the degree of patronage in favour of former members of the Administration.
I am not worried about the law lords since they are not very political animals. I do not think that the Government will waste much time in suborning law lords. It is neither an attractive nor an interesting occupation. They have already obtained acquiescence without any great exercise of pressure—that is, until we came to the Committee stage in this House.
The justification for the debate upon this Amendment is that it has brought out the significance of words which, on the face of them do not appear to be important and has shown how much hangs upon them. It shows how those who are responsible for putting this Bill before the House have failed to apprise themselves of the true feelings of hon. Members in all parts of the House, indeed, of people in the country at large, as to the dangers which are involved in this legislation.
I hope that when ultimately we vote, the Committee will decide that the words should be struck and that the Bill should go forward without them. I hope that the Minister, who is in an uncomfortable position, a position which must be very tiring, will not be put off by the thought of having a Report stage. I know that he wants to accept the Amendment. He must accept it since all his hon. Friends are for it. I can see that he himself is for it, for he has a benign look on his face; he is smiling and leaning forward.
In a Report stage we might improve the Bill further; we could make many changes and give careful thought to provisions which have been passed but which we have not fully considered. We want a Report stage. The Minister can help the Committee, and indeed the country by accepting my right hon. Friend's Amendment. I hope that it is

for that purpose that he is rising to his feet.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I am tempted by the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) that I might murmur "flexibility" and sit down. But, having listened for three hours and forty-five minutes to the discussion, I thought it appropriate to reply to the points which were raised in the discussions the week before last, and today, in reply to the Amendment in the single name of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell).
The Amendment relates to subsection (2), which deals with the position of a Minister or holder of high judicial office who retires and gives up office during a Parliament. A number of people present will know what it is to give up office during the course of a Parliament for a variety of reasons. By paragraph (a) he will retain full voting rights for the remainder of the Session in which he retires. Paragraph (b) makes it possible for him to remain a voting peer thereafter, if he so wishes and is within the time limit, by allowing him to deposit a voting declaration within one month of the opening of the next Session or within such extended period as the House may for special reasons allow.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) asked a question about the Ministerial Salaries Consolidation Act 1965. It is an important matter which has loomed somewhat in our argument so far, but as it arises on the next Amendment I will leave that matter for now.
The provision which the Amendment seeks to remove corresponds with that in Clause 3(4) which enables the House to allow for special reasons an extended period for voting declarations generally. We have already discussed this matter. I accept that we are now discussing it in the context of ex-Ministers and ex-holders of high judicial office.
A peer created during the Parliament would have a month to deposit a voting declaration. The existing peers would have approximately one month from the dissolution of the previous Parliament, and the time limit may be extended by the House for special reasons. We are


all aware of what those special reasons might be. I understand that there was concern about other reasons which might come under the heading of "special". What we have in mind is illness, emergencies, cases in which the person concerned may be abroad, or the late delivery of the writ. There are a variety of things of this kind. It is not intended to enable a peer to deposit a voting declaration out of time as a matter of course.

Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman may have been guilty of an inadvertence. He referred among various causes to the late delivery of the writ. I wonder how this could arise, since the time runs from the writ.

Mr. Rees: I am grateful to the right. hon. Gentleman. I withdraw that remark. I was thinking aloud, and I beg the Committee's pardon. I shall not press that point. The question of the special reasons would, in the Government's view, have to be interpreted by the other place. I accept that this matter exercises people's minds. It could be done in another place by the Leave of Absence committee or by the Committee of Privileges. The Government's view is that it is appropriate for it to be left to another place to determine what these special reasons should be.

Mr. Neave: Would there be any right of appeal against an interpretation by the leave of absence committee?

Mr. Rees: I was coming to that point. The rule that each House is the master of its own procedures is well known. I am advised also that the courts will not look behind the decisions of each House in matters of their own proceedings. It would be a question for the other place.
The argument against that is that there ought to be far greater precision and that the matter ought to be laid down in more detail. This was not the Government's view in dealing with peers generally, and it is not their view when dealing with ex-Ministers and ex-holders of high judicial office. The question should be left to the other place, and it is my view and that of the Government that, in relationships between the two Houses, it is best left in that way between honourable men. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham,

North has made his point about analogy with other matters, but I do not consider that it can be stretched that far. This is a new type of House of Lords, the point which concerns my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). The view which I have put, that it is best left to honourable men, is the one which I commend to the Committee.
I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and by other hon. Members about the origins of this arrangement. In the narrow practical sense, without it the people concerned would have to wait till the end of the Parliament. We are considering here people who have been Ministers or who have held high judicial office. If it be thought that they have something to contribute to the new House, taking into account that they could speak—I shall come back to the difference between speaking and voting—the Government's view is that they should have these extra rights, having held office or high judicial office in another place.

Mr. Michael Foot: There have been several analogies drawn with what happens in this House. Why should ex-Ministers have in the proposed reformed House of Lords favours which they are not granted in this House?

Mr. Rees: The analogy is drawn, but it is not completely fair. These are people who have themselves decided—as well as being asked, if they were Ministers—to hold high office. They cease to hold such office. The simple answer is that it is considered that people, of whatever political party, who have been thought to have that ability should have the right to have these special arrangements made for them.

Mr. Powell: Surely, the Minister is referring to the concession in paragraph (a). One appreciates that the ex-Minister is allowed to remain a voting peer until the end of the Session. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will address himself to what has been one of the principal arguments; namely, that thereby he already has normally a much longer period for putting in the voting declaration than an ordinary peer would have. The hon. Gentleman has not dealt with that yet.

Mr. Rees: I accept that point, but in a consideration of this issue, which has become wider in that sense, the view of the Government nevertheless was that it would be appropriate to treat ex-Ministers and ex-holders of high judicial office in this special way.
I assure the Committee that there is nothing sinister or unsavoury about what we have proposed. The hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South, with his legal experience, dealt with the question of holders of high judicial office in this connection, though he did not use the words "monetary" or "sinister" which had been used earlier in relation to holders of high judicial office. Understandably, we have had a bit of fun about what happens to an ex-Minister whose authority has gone and so on, but it is wrong to suggest that there is anything sinister or unsavoury here. I shall come to the question of patronage in a few moments. I suggest that there are more sinister and more unsavoury matters in politics than that.
I was asked also about disputes on membership and about the question of the delicate balance. As regards disputes on membership, each House is master of its own proceedings. This is a wider question than the one I dealt with a few moments ago, and I bring it in now. As regards the delicate balance and calculations of party strengths—the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West raised this—and the question of resigned Ministers upsetting the voting balance, the remedy proposed is set out in paragraph 48 of the White Paper.
The figure for particular parties would naturally be capable of being varied from time to time to reflect changes in their relative strength …"—
this is a second aspect of the reformed House—
which the proposed committee might keep under review.
The main point here is that the figures for particular parties would, naturally, be capable of being varied. If there were six ex-Ministers on the Government side, there would be need for action regarding creations on the other side.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman says about paragraph 48. I read it as referring to variations from time to time to reflect

changes in the relative strength of the parties in the House of Commons. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it does not mean that but is intended to deal with changes in relative strength in another place?

Mr. Rees: I concede—I have had a quick glance at the paragraph—that the reference there is to relative strengths in the House of Commons, for reasons which we all know, but it would be possible also for the Government to deal with relative strengths in the House of Lords as well if the balance were thrown out of joint as a result of the number of ex-Ministers. I shall come back to the question of numbers based on experience in a moment, since it might be thought that there would be a large number of ex-Ministers and a great effect on the delicate balance, to use the phrase, in the other place.
The ex-Ministers will always count in the Government's total of 105 in a House of 230, or in a similar proportion if the House is of a different size. The ex-law lords will be outside the calculation altogether. The question of delicate balance can be dealt with in that way.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: Does the Minister really mean that all ex-Ministers will be in the Government quota? What happens when a Minister resigns after a blazing row with the Government? Is he nevertheless to be included in the Government quota? It does not seem fair.

Mr. Rees: I was coming to that point. Ex-Ministers, of all political parties, frisk into strange fields sometimes, having lost the bonds of office, and that would have to be taken into account in dealing with the balance in another place in relation to which party—or no party at all—such ex-Ministers decided to report to.

Mr. Iremonger: What sort of inquisition will be held on these ex-Ministers? They may frisk away and then frisk back.

Mr. Rees: I accept that there is a difficulty there, but in terms of the majority in the House of Lords, when one comes down to detail of that kind, though it is possible to poke fun, it will be feasible in practice to consider the number, and it may be necessary to have additional creations for other reasons, too. It is not only ex-Ministers who change their


minds. We talked about this earlier. One of the facts of political life in this country is that people do change their minds. I accept that they seem to change a bit more quickly sometimes when people have recently been Ministers than on other occasions, but it is not unheard of among ex-Ministers as well. There is an appropriate way of dealing with the balance in another place, and that was the question raised.
The number of ex-Ministers and ex-law lords will always be small if past experience is anything to go by. Ex-Ministers in the other place are not more than a dozen at the most. Ex-law lords have never been more than one or two; they retire at the age which we have discussed already.
7.0 p.m.
I come now to the question of ex-Ministers and patronage. I had a list quickly made of ex-Ministers of the present Government now in another place. There are Lord Longford; Lord Champion, an old friend of mine; Lord Rhodes, who represented the constituency which my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne now represents; Lord Mitchison. Lord Champion and Lord Mitchison are, in effect, over age but when one looks at that small list, when one talks of people of that kind being influenced by patronage, then that is really a reflection on people who served in this House, a reflection which I could not accept for one moment.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: Is that list complete? There is Lord Walston, is there not, and there are possibly some others?

Mr. Rees: I have just said I have taken——

An Hon. Member: Lord Snow.

Mr. Rees: The hon. Member is not reflecting on the honour of anybody, I hope, even if he disagrees or otherwise with remarks which have been made. We are talking about honourable people in another place, and when we use the word "sinister" and when we are talking about being influenced by patronage I simply suggest to the Committee that that is a reflection on the calibre of that type of person in another place.

Mr. Michael Foot: I certainly was not casting any reflection, particularly on Lord Mitchison. It would be outrageous for anybody to do so, particularly because he was the man who introduced in another place the Parliament (No. 1) Bill which would have saved us all this trouble.

Mr. Rees: Well, my hon. Friend has shown yet again that I did not burn enough midnight oil—did I?—in quoting the names. However, this does not detract from the point that, when one looks at the calibre of the people we are referring to, the suggestion that they would be influenced by patronage would seem to be a wrong one.
There was one other question asked. I do not know, but perhaps the Committee would be interested in the chairmen of the nationalised industries. I know my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North is very interested in the chairmen of nationalised industries.

Mr. Sheldon: Before my hon. Friend leaves the question of patronage, which, I think, he is dismissing a little too lightly, he must be aware that the results of this Bill, if it were to be implemented, would be to extend the power of patronage throughout both Houses—from this House to the other House, from the other House to Ministers, from Minister to ex-Ministers. This is the corruption which would go throughout both Houses, and it is this, more than anything else, with which I was concerned.

Mr. Rees: I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about this, as are other hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, as a major issue. I am referring to it in the context of ex-Ministers, which is precisely the point of the Amendment, and also of the holders of high judicial office and what I was saying was that, given the names of people I have mentioned, I do not think that any talk about patronage can really hold a great deal of water.
With regard to chairmen of nationalised industries, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent them from voting, but they would be expected not to make a voting declaration unless they proposed to attend more than one-third of the time, and their employment, I should have thought, would not enable them to do that. They could


do so, and at the beginning of a Parliament make a declaration. There is already a convention in the other place, as I am sure my hon. Friend knows, that they would not speak on matters affecting their industries.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman intended to do so, but it would appear that he was rejecting the point raised on an earlier Amendment, as to whether duties in connection with the nationalised industries would or would not be "public business" for the purpose of the exception from attendance calculations provided for in an earlier Clause. Unless he is saying that their absence would not be on public business—when they were absent and discharging their duties on a nationalised board—his argument has no validity at all.

Mr. Rees: With regard to my thoughts on this matter of the chairmen of nationalised industries, I said that their employment would hardly permit them to attend more than one-third of the time. If I did not put in the word "hardly" I should have done. I am not giving it in the definitive sense of the term, but I should have thought that their duties in being in a nationalised industry would hardly permit their attending Parliament a sufficient number of times.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The point is that if their duties in connection with a nationalised industry are in connection with a public business as defined in this Bill absence on those duties would not affect their attendance record at all. Therefore, unless the hon. Gentleman is saying that those duties are not public business his argument has really no force at all.

Mr. Rees: I well recall the discussion of what is "public business", and I certainly do not want to lay down anything in that respect. I was simply deal-

ing with the point, and I took the point, that the right hon. Gentleman made, and it does contradict earlier remarks on it. I was being asked a question about the chairmen of nationalised industries, and the view that I expressed was that in most cases I should have thought that their public business would make it difficult for the chairmen to come in in this respect.

On the problem of patronage, again, in this context, I take the present Chairman of the National Coal Board, for whom I have a great admiration, and I hardly think that he could be held to be someone who would be affected by any patronage exercised of that type. Here, again I should have thought this an excellent example to defeat the view that patronage would stop people from saying what they wanted to say.

A number of hon. Gentlemen have raised the question of ad hominem, and this has come up on a number of occasions. I stand on the view of the Solicitor-General when he offered the view to the Committee
that, on a true construction, the provision is intended to be ad hominem and has that effect."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1969; Vol. 778, c. 1818.]
As hon. Gentlemen who were here then will know, that has wider implications which I do not feel called upon to go into and discuss again now.

The Clause treats of ex-Ministers and holders of high judicial office, and in the view of the Government it is an appropriate thing to do, and I ask the Committee to vote against the Amendment.

Mr. Neil McBride: Mr. Neil McBride rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 139, Noes 72.

Division No. 152.]
AYES
[7.8 p.m.


Anderson, Donald
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)


Archer, Peter
Carmichael, Neil
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Delargy, Hugh


Baxter, William
Chapman, Donald
Dewar, Donald


Beaney, Alan
Coleman, Donald
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Concannon, J. D.
Dunnett, Jack


Blackburn, F.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Eadie, Alex


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Crawshaw, Richard
Edelman, Maurice


Bradley, Tom
Cronin, John
Ellis, John


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
English, Michael


Brooks, Edwin
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Ennals, David


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Dalyell, Tam
Ensor, David


Buchan, Norman
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)




Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Loughlin, Charles
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Faulds, Andrew
Luard, Evan
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Fernyhough, E.
Lubbock, Eric
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Finch, Harold
McCann, John
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
MacColl, James
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Foley, Maurice
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Silverman, Julius


Forrester, John
McNamara, J. Kevin
Skeffington, Arthur


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Marks, Kenneth
Slater, Joseph


Freeson, Reginald
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Small, William


Ginsburg, David
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Spriggs, Leslie


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Millan, Bruce
Steel, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Gregory, Arnold
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Taverne, Dick


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Thornton, Ernest


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Tinn, James


Hannan, William
Murray, Albert
Urwin, T. W.


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Neal, Harold
Varley, Eric G.


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Oakes, Gordon
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Haseldine, Norman
Ogden, Eric
Watkins, David (Consett)


Hazell, Bert
O'Malley, Brian
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Henig, Stanley
Oram, Albert E.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Orbach, Maurice
Whitlock, William


Hoy, James
Oswald, Thomas
Wilkins, W. A.


Hunter, Adam
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hynd, John
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pavitt, Laurence
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Winnick, David


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pentland, Norman
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Kenyon, Clifford
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)



Lawson, George
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Mr. Neil McBride and


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rees, Merlyn
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Lipton, Marcus
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hay, John
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Barnes, Michael
Heffer, Eric S.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Biffen, John
Hiley, Joseph
Ridsdale, Julian


Biggs-Davison, John
Iremonger, T. L.
Royle, Anthony


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Ryan, John


Black, Sir Cyril
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Sharples, Richard


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Sheldon, Robert


Body, Richard
Kershaw, Anthony
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Booth, Albert
Kitson, Timothy
Silvester, Frederick


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Carlisle, Mark
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Crouch, David
Marten, Neil
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Mikardo, Ian
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Monro, Hector
Waddington, David


Dean, Paul
More, Jasper
Wall, Patrick


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Ward, Dame Irene


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Neave, Airey
Weatherill, Bernard


Eyre, Reginald
Orme, Stanley
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Percival, Ian



Gower, Raymond
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Peyton, John
Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke and




Mr. Angus Maude.

Question put accordingly, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 65, Noes 143.

Division No. 153.]
AYES
[7.17 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Corfield, F. V.
Heffer, Eric S.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Crouch, David
Hiley, Joseph


Barnes, Michael
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Iremonger, T. L.


Biffen, John
Dalkeith, Earl of
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)


Biggs-Davison, John
Dean, Paul
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Black, Sir Cyril
English, Michael
Kitson, Timothy


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lee, John (Reading)


Body, Richard
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Booth, Albert
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hay, John
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)




Marten, Neil
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Mikardo, Ian
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Monro, Hector
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Ridsdale, Julian
Waddington, David


Neave, Airey
Ryan, John
Wall, Patrick


Orme, Stanley
Sharples, Richard
Ward, Dame Irene


Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Sheldon, Robert
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)



Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Silvester, Frederick
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)
Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke and


Peyton, John
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Mr. Angus Maude.




NOES


Anderson, Donald
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Orbach, Maurice


Archer, Peter
Gregory, Arnold
Oswald, Thomas


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Baxter, William
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Beaney, Alan
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hannan, William
Pavitt, Laurence


Bessell, Peter
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Blackburn, F.
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Haseldine, Norman
Pentland, Norman


Bradley, Tom
Hattersley, Roy
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hazell, Bert
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Brooks, Edwin
Henig, Stanley
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Rees, Merlyn


Buchan, Norman
Hoy, James
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hunter, Adam
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Carmichael, Neil
Hynd, John
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Chapman, Donald
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Coleman, Donald
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Silverman, Julius


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Skeffington, Arthur


Crawshaw, Richard
Kenyon, Clifford
Slater, Joseph


Cronin, John
Lawson, George
Small, William




Spriggs, Leslie


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Taverne, Dick


Dalyell, Tam
Lipton, Marcus
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Lomas, Kenneth
Thornton, Ernest


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Loughlin, Charles
Tinn, James


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Luard, Evan
Urwin, T. W.


Delargy, Hugh
Lubbock, Eric
Varley, Eric G.


Dell, Edmund
McBride, Neil
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Dewar, Donald
McCann, John
Watkins, David (Consett)


Diamond, Rt Hn. John
MacColl, James
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Dunnett, Jack
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Eadie, Alex
McNamara, J. Kevin
Whitlock, William


Edelman, Maurice
Marks, Kenneth
Wilkins, W. A.


Ellis, John
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Ennals, David
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Ensor, David
Millan, Bruce
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Faulds, Andrew
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Winnick, David


Fernyhough, E.
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Finch, Harold
Murray, Albert
Woof, Robert


Foley, Maurice
Neal, Harold



Forrester, John
Oakes, Gordon
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Ogden, Eric
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Freeson, Reginald
O'Malley, Brian
Mr. Alan Fitch.


Ginsburg, David
Oram, Albert E.

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay): We come to Amendment No. 251. Mr. Boyd-Carpenter—

Mr. Sheldon: On a point of order, Mr. Gourlay. I have had brought to my notice what happened when we finished our business on 2nd April. In column 554 of HANSARD of that date, we read:
"It being Seven o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair, further Proceeding standing postponed, until after the consideration of

Private Business set down by the direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business).
MR. SPEAKER resumed the Chair."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd April, 1969; Vol. 781, c. 554.]
At the end of this private Business, as reported in column 619, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Fitch) made the Motion and proposed the Question, That this House do now adjourn. It seems, therefore, that there was an


omission of the reporting of Progress and requesting of leave to sit again. Would you give your Ruling on this, Mr. Gourlay?

The Deputy Chairman: It is entirely within the competence of the Government to put down the Orders of the Day; so it is quite in order.

Mr. Michael Foot: Further to that point of order. Is it not the case, from the facts which my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) recited, that the whole of the discussion which we have had today has been out of order, and that if we were out of order before, we are still out of order now? Is it not the case that the Motion was not moved on the night which should have restored the business to the proper form and that, therefore, the debate was resumed today in circumstances were were not in order?

The Deputy Chairman: rose—

Mr. Foot: Maybe that was the Government's intention, but even so——

The Deputy Chairman: Order. When the occupant of the Chair is on his feet, the hon. Member must resume his seat. I have already ruled on the point of order. The business of the Committee today is strictly in order under the Standing Orders of the House.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I sincerely trust that, in view of your Ruling, Mr. Gourlay, the Amendment which I am about to move will be moved in a proper Committee stage, because it has passed my mind that the events to which attention has just been drawn by the ever-vigilant hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) may have been deliberately intended by the Government as a convenient way of losing the Bill, but no doubt they will have another opportunity in a little while.
While they are giving consideration to that—I understand that the Cabinet is in constant session at the moment, interrupted only by the necessity of entering the Chamber when a count is called—I beg to move, in page 5, line 8, at end add—
(4) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any Act, the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Lords, and the Chief Opposition

Whip in that House for the time being shall for the purposes of this section be deemed to be holders of an office in respect of which salary is payable under the Ministerial Salaries Consolidation Act 1965.
The origin of this Amendment, which I am glad that the Chairman of Ways and Means thought it proper to select, is in certain observations originally made by one of the Under-Secretaries of State as reported at col. 377 of the Report of our debate on 1st April. I am informed that, although it is attributed in the OFFICIAL REPORT to one of the Under-Secretaries, the words in fact were uttered by the other—an indication of how the confusion on the Treasury Bench has apparently percolated upwards.
At that stage one or other of the Under-Secretaries of State, dealing with what was the first Amendment selected to the Clause concerning subsection (1,a), said:
The Amendment is concerned with certain offices, and those offices include the Leader of the Conservative Party in the other place, who is paid, and the Conservative Chief Whip, who is also paid. They must be taken into account in considering the Amendment"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st April, 1969; Vol. 781, c. 377.]
There were subsequent references to this matter, and again one of the Under-Secretaries of State at the Home Office went out of his way to repeat that this statement was made on the legal advice of the Home Office. Indeed, that legal advice was so impressive that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) indicated a willingness to accept it because it was the advice of the Home Office. I should be sorry if, in the course of the debate, that simple and rather touching faith in the infallibility of the Legal Department of the Home Office received a dent.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: I said that I preferred to accept the advice of the lawyers in the Home Office rather than the advice of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter).

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I hope that, before coming to a final conclusion between these two high sources of authority, the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to await the outcome of the debate. If it turns out that he finds that his faith in the Home Office was misplaced, I know


him well enough to know that he will make a most handsome apology.
It is not for me to give to the Committee the result of the Government's further consideration of the matter; it is certainly for me to thank the Under-Secretary of State for his great courtesy, which he always shows, in informing me of the further consideration which Ministers have given to the advice tendered to the Committee and indicating a willingness to make a statement at the earliest convenient opportunity. I understand that the hon. Gentleman proposes to make that statement during the debate. I think that the debate would go more conveniently were he to make it when I have moved the Amendment so that we can discuss the matter on the basis of the further advice which he has been good enough to indicate that he will tender to the Committee.
I propose, therefore, to base my argument on the hypothesis that the view expressed by the Minister at an earlier stage was wrong and that, though given entirely in complete good faith and on the basis of the advice given to him, it is not the fact that the Leaders of the Opposition in another place or the Chief Opposition Whip in another place are within the privileged category under subsection 1(a). I think that we can proceed on the basis that they are not in that category.
If this is right, it raises a point of considerable importance. When the Minister told the Committee that these two persons were within the privileged category—within the grade 1 peers with the privileges of being able to be over 72 and not having to attend on one occasion in three—he no doubt told the Committee not only what he thought the Bill meant but what the Government intended. If this were the interpretation which the Government put on the Bill, they must have meant to include the two people in another place who are in receipt of salaries in respect of their offices. In the case of the Chief Opposition Whip in another place, it is a recent addition made by the Government. If we are to proceed on the basis that what the Government intended is not as a matter of law enacted in the Bill, I hope that I shall hear the hon. Gentleman say that they have an immediate intention to put it right.
The Amendment proposes to put into the Bill the original intention of the Government. In those circumstances it would be very surprising if the hon. Gentleman did not accept it. This is not a proposal put forward by those opposed to the Bill; it is not a proposal put forward by the Minister's hon. Friends below the Gangway or by my right hon. Friends on this side of the Committee. This is an attempt to make the Bill do what the Government thought it did and what the Government, therefore, must presume to have intended that it should do.
Let us consider the merits of the matter. Considerable privileges are given to the Ministers I have mentioned, apart from the privileges when they cease to be Ministers. It must be wrong to confer those privileges only on Ministers and not on former and perhaps future Ministers who confront them across the Table.
We were told at an earlier stage that one reason for giving this privilege to Ministers was to give the Government of the day freedom in selecting people to be Ministers in another place. They might want to select somebody over 72. This is far from academic, because I think that Lord Mitchison, who I always thought was the ablest Member of the Government in another place, is now well over that age and was over that age while holding office. Indeed, I believe that he makes a very powerful argument against having any age limits in the other place since his ability in drafting and his Parliamentary vigour were as conspicuous in another place as some of us remember them on his part in the House of Commons. This was the Government's argument for flexibility, because Ministers might have other commitments and not be able to meet the attendance requirements.
But surely it is part of the spirit of our Parliamentary system that we do not confer on Ministers legal privileges which we deny to those who deal with them from the other side of the Table who may have preceded them or may succeed them. It must be right that the Leader of the Opposition of the day should have a similar freedom at least in selecting the Leader of the Opposition in another place and the Chief Whip. Indeed, I should criticise—and when we come to the Question, That the Clause stand part of the


Bill, even if the Amendment is accepted, it will be necessary to criticise—limiting the privilege only to two Opposition Leaders when it is given very widely and fully to Ministers. To do what the Government set out to do and to give these privileges to two people on the Opposition Front Bench—two people selected for the understandable reason that they are paid for the discharge of their offices—is surely common justice to the Opposition.
I should think this point would appeal to all right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee and on both Front Benches. Therefore, the Amendment is simple and straightforward. It sets out to confer these privileges on the two occupants of the Opposition Front Bench in another place who, it is public policy now, should be salaried and who, therefore, it is surely beyond dispute, should be treated for these purposes on the same basis as Ministers. Therefore, if the hon. Gentleman wants to do what the Government plainly intended to do, he must accept the Amendment.
Equally, if he wants to clear the Bill of the charge that it deliberately treats Ministers and, for that matter, high judicial officers—although they are not relevant in this context—as grade 1 peers, and everyone else, including senior and distinguished ex-Ministers in another place, as second-best peers, he must realise that the present provision does violence not only to the concept of the new Upper House which the Bill seeks to set up but to the whole Parliamentary concept as we see it in this country.
In countries which are one-party States and dictatorships, and where there is no Opposition or, if there is, it has taken to the hills, this kind of thing is understandable and natural, but in countries in which the British Parliamentary system has developed it is the normal thing to proceed on the basis of absolute equality on the Floor of the House.
Subject to the clearing up of the interpretation of the Bill, which I have not on this occasion argued, although I have argued it on at least one earlier occasion and in one earlier intervention, because I understand that there is no difficulty about that, I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept that to refuse this Amendment in

those circumstances would amount to making a farce of the procedure of the House of Commons. It would be bad enough to introduce a specially distorted system of privilege in another place, but my interest and concern is much more with the House of Commons. To say that when the House of Commons seeks to amend a Government Bill so that it carries out the Government's intention, it is nonetheless to be voted down by the use of a Government majority is a denial of Parliament which I doubt whether even the present Government have the face to make.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I acknowledge at once the courtesy of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). This matter was raised before, and we should have found a way for later discussion had the Easter Recess not made it possible for an Amendment to be tabled. I acknowledge that this is probably a better way of dealing with the matter.
The right hon. Gentleman has made a powerful argument for doing what I stated at an earlier stage was in the Bill as it is drafted. I must advise him that the advice I have had since is that the Bill as drafted does what the Government intend it to do, and that there is no need for this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman argued that because the Bill did not do what we wanted it to do, his Amendment was appropriate, but my counter argument is that the advice I have had from my legal advisers and from the Law Officers is that the Bill as drawn does what the Government want it to do, and that there is therefore no need for the Amendment.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I should like to get this quite clear. Is the hon. Gentleman, in saying that, saying that subsection (1, a) does or does not confer a privileged status on the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Opposition Whip in another place? Leave aside what the Government intended what is the effect of the Bill?

Mr. Rees: I will deal with that point as I deploy my argument.
The right hon. Gentleman has argued, as he has argued before, that the posts of Leader of the Opposition and Chief Opposition Whip in another place, to whom salaries are admittedly payable


under Section 4 of the Ministerial Salaries Consolidation Act, 1965, are not those of offices in respect of which salary is payable under the Act. It may have been a lapsus linguae, but when he spoke a moment ago the right hon. Gentleman referred to the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Opposition Whip in the other place as being the holders of those offices. But that has not been his argument.
7.45 p.m.
Clause 5 makes special provision for Ministers and holders of high judicial office to have voting rights, and we argue this in paragraph 45 of the White Paper. Subsection (1, a) says that the holder
… any office in respect of which salary is payable under the Ministerial Salaries Consolidation Act 1965 … shall be qualified as a voting peer …
I repeat the words "any office".
The right hon. Gentleman's argument was based on the ground that the word "office", which is used in Sections 1 and 2 and throughout the Act of 1965 in relation to Ministerial posts, is not used in Section 4. I concede also that that argument might be supported by popular usage, which speaks of a Member "holding office", meaning that he has a post in the Government, and that one would not speak in those terms of members of the Shadow Cabinet. But, in the present context, I am firmly advised that popular usage is not relevant. The expression "office" is quite neutral and covers all officers remunerated under the 1965 Act.
If the intention had been to confine paragraph (a) to Ministerial posts, it would have been necessary to describe them as offices paid under Section 1 of the Act. Section 1 of the Act states:
Subject to the provisions of this Act, there shall be paid to the holder of any Ministerial office specified in Schedule 1 of this Act an annual salary …
and so on. It would be inconceivable, I am again firmly advised, to balance such a distinction on the point of a verbal nuance such as that on which the right hon. Gentleman relied. Section 4 of the Act refers to persons rather than to offices. Again, I am advised that that point is also covered by the explanation which I have just given to the right hon. Gentleman.
Another point worth bringing into the discussion is that the salaries of Ministers go on until a General Election is over and a new Government has been formed, whereas the salaries of, if that is the right word, or the payments made to, the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Opposition Whip in both places end when Parliament is dissolved, as does the payment to Members of Parliament. Payment stops on dissolution, because once Parliament is dissolved there are neither M.P.s nor Opposition.
As I have argued, the position of Ministers is different. On dissolution, there is no Parliament in which there is an Opposition. One is then fighting an Election when everyone knows in practical terms who is the Leader of the Opposition and so on, but in the context for which payment is made the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Opposition Whip in either place has ceased to be. I am advised that this also explains the difference between the payment to Ministers and the payment to Members of the Opposition.
I am sure that on reflection nobody on either side, given the nuances of political life, would expect that, irrespective of the fact that there has been a dissolution, the Leader of the Opposition in either place, and particularly in this place, should be regarded as going on into the next Parliament, because the result of a General Election might bring about a different political situation and different attitudes. A larger Opposition or a victory for the Opposition might make a profound difference.
However, I do not offer that as in any way justifying what I have said. I adhere to the view which I expressed in the early stages of our discussion, that the Bill as drafted means what I explained to the Committee on that occasion and what I have explained today. There is no need for the Amendment. It is not for me to suggest the appropriate step to be taken, but I think that we are agreed on what we both want. We want the Bill to state the situation which I believe is brought about by the Bill. I am confirmed in this by the legal advice which I have received, both Departmentally and from the Law Officers. I hope that in the light of that the right hon. Gentleman will see fit to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am not clear what is the Under-Secretary's answer to the question which I put to him earlier in his speech and which he was good enough to say he would answer in his own way. I will put it again. In his view, are the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Opposition Whip in another place treated by the Bill in precisely the same way as Ministers?

Mr. Rees: The answer to that is, "Yes".

Mr. Lubbock: When we discussed this matter on a previous occasion the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) was rather scathing about my acceptance of the advice of the Home Office in preference to that which he had proffered to the Committee. Today in moving the Amendment the right hon. Gentleman assumed that his advice was correct, the discussions which I gather that he has had with the Under-Secretary having confirmed him in that view.
Now that the Under-Secretary has given his considered reply, after having taken further legal advice from the Home Office, I think that the matter is fairly clear. Although Section 4(1,b) of the 1965 Act does not say that the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Opposition Whip are office holders within the meaning of the Act, they are in fact office holders for legal purposes. That is the advice which the Home Office has given to the Under-Secretary and which the Under-Secretary has given to the Committee.
As the right hon. Gentleman invited me to make an apology to the Committee for the views which I expressed on a previous occasion when, as the right hon. Gentleman assumed, they were proved wrong by the speech from the Government Front Bench, I merely rise to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would care to give the Committee an apology for misleading it on a previous occasion and for wasting half-an-hour of the Committee's time this afternoon.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) had listened to the Under-Secretary's speech, he would have realised that this is plainly not a point on which any very clear copper-bottomed answer has been given.

In the light of the Under-Secretary's reply, which, if he does not mind my saying so, was rather different from that which he led me to expect that he would give, it will be necessary to argue the matter in full. This I propose to do. I hope that the hon. Member for Orpington will not regard it as wasting the time of the Committee if some of us seek to get every point in the Bill clearly argued on the merits to see whether it is right. If the hon. Gentleman does not want to take part in the discussions, I am not sure that the Committee will mind. He might, if I might quote another passage in the Bill, have "leave of absence".

Mr. John Lee: We are confronted with an extraordinary situation. Everyone is very appreciative of the courteous and painstaking explanation given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. If this is indeed how the Bill should be correctly read, as it has already raised doubts in the minds of a number of people it would be only right—I hope that the Solicitor-General will remember this—that there should be an "avoidance of doubt clause" at the end of the Clause so that this shall not be the subject of any misunderstanding later.
If, as I do not necessarily dispute, the explanation given by my hon. Friend is correct, it makes the situation even more bizarre than it was. We already have this extraordinary system of privileged peerages, perpetuating and causing a lack of balance, as it necessarily must. There are to be classes of peerages in relation to the whole question of voting rights and the fading out of the hereditary peers. This concept is now to be extended to the other side of the House. I am not saying this to be snide or to sneer. I hope in a few moments to develop the question that we should discuss the constitutional development of the whole concept of an opposition. It is certainly well within the terms of the Amendment that we should do so.
If there be a case for the Leader of the Opposition in another place to have this privilege, by the same token, as the constitution now recognises the existence of political parties, it should be right for the Liberal Party in the other place and the cross-bench peers notionally to have leaders and chief whips so that all


those who play any part in the other place are placed on an equal footing one with another. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Orpington intends to stick up for the interests of his party—

Mr. Lubbock: That is why I am here.

Mr. Lee: It would be strange if I had to do that for the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman has been noticeably coy in his criticisms or willingness to contribute constructive suggestions for improving the Bill.
The Amendment, disregarding for the moment the question whether my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is correct in his legal interpretation, would carry a stage further the idea that an opposition has a positive function in the life of Parliament and that that function is so important that it should be accorded legal recognition.

Mr. Heffer: I am fascinated by my hon. Friend's argument. Does he agree that the principle should be extended to include the Communist Member of the House of Lords, who might possibly be followed by a few other Lords who became Communists?

Mr. Lee: In logic I think that is true. The same would apply if there were a Trotskyite in the House of Lords. It would be a little difficult to apply it in the case of an anarchist, because by definition anarchists are not a party, but they are an identifiable separate political opinion. In so far as this is an attempt to place beyond doubt the parity within the Chamber of the respective political parties, my hon. Friend is clearly right, though I do not know what would happen in practice. I believe that there is only one Communist peer—Lord Milford. To be strictly correct, he should be a party as well. As there is only one of him, we might be confronted with the bizarre situation of having to pay him a double salary—one salary for himself as leader of his party and another salary for himself as chief whip for his party.
I come to the much more intractable problem of whether the principle propounded by the Amendment should be extended to the cross-bench peers. To be on a basis of parity with other political parties, would they have to caucus

as an electoral college and for the purposes of recognition elect themselves a leader and a deputy leader?
8.0 p.m.
This is not so fanciful a situation as some might suppose. I know from conversations with the hon. Members for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) and Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing) the difficulties they sometimes encounter, in relation to Government business in this House, in not having the usual channels at their disposal. There are no usual channels for them. Therefore, the kind of liaison with the Table Office and with Mr. Speaker which is necessarily and rightly accorded to the Whips is not available to them.

Mr. Heffer: When my hon. Friend said that it was not so fanciful a situation as the Committee might think, possibly he had Lord Wigg in mind?

Mr. Lee: I never knew that the Horserace Betting Levy Board counted as a political party. That formidable personage could combine many functions within himself. However, I had better not pursue that too far.
I have said that I thought it was pertinent to a discussion of this Amendment that we should pause and see how the development of the constitution has taken place during this century. It was not till 1902 that the office of Prime Minister was officially recognised for the first time. Up till then, in order of precedence the Prime Minister merely had the rank of Privy Councillor, and I think that he ranked below the younger son of a lower marquess or something absurd like that. From recognising the Prime Minister as a political leader it took another 35 years before the Ministers of the Crown Act, 1937 constituted for the first time the post of Leader of the Opposition in the House.
What this Amendment does, as I understand it, is to make sure beyond a peradventure that the idea of opposition, which has gradually been engendered, crystallised and recognised in this House, should be carried on in another Chamber. If we are to have a refurbished second Chamber—though the refurbishing which is going on is not much to the taste of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House—then clearly it is


appropriate that something of this kind should be done. I do not like the idea of privileged peers anyway. I do not see why anybody should have voting rights specially created for him.
Again, if it is an abuse, which Ministers will have difficulty in resisting the temptation to use, to create Ministers beyond the proper quota and from outside the existing Chamber in order to upset the balance that this Bill so elaborately is intended to provide for, one can see what the Leader of the Opposition will do. He will be appointing and sacking his Chief Whip time in and time out, as frequently as French Prime Ministers changed in the Third Republic, until he has a large number of privileged peers. All the absurd provisions about leave of absence, special reasons and so forth which are referable to ex-Ministers who have been privileged in this way will be extended in just the same way to the Leader of the Opposition and his Chief Whip.
Referring back to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), this is a wonderful way in which the Communist Party could increase its representation, assuming that it had the same privileges. The Communist peer could sack himself from the leadership and then, presumably under the appropriate procedure, create another peer from outside who would become his Chief Whip, and they could caucus themselves into an electoral college and sack each other, and gradually the Communist Party would build up its representation.
One can imagine the strange situations which might occur. I can imagine the difficulties of getting cross-bench peers, if they were also accorded the kind of privileges which this Bill envisages, to meet in one place, let alone to agree on one particular kind of policy, even to the extent of getting their friends and relations into the other place.
This is the glossation of a nonsense. The Clause is a nonsense. The provision in this subsection is a nonsense and, with the greatest respect to the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), his Amendment is a nonsense too, although it is at least a clarificatory nonsense which is required by a Bill which is not very clear.
I would be the last person to bandy the law with my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, but I should like to tell him a story of an incident which occurred to me in relation to the absence of clarificatory provisions. It fell to me once, years ago as a young Colonial Service officer—far too young to be doing the kind of job I was doing when I was posted to a Ministry in Ghana—to supervise some legislation. A Bill for the avoidance of doubt was brought forward—an ordinance as it was constituted under the old colonial system. I was too shy to presume to criticise it, and it went through. Then I was bold enough to point out some anomalies, and there then had to be another Bill for the avoidance of doubt.
At any rate, on the belt, braces and safety-pin policy, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary had better consider accepting the Amendment on the lines that the hon. Gentleman has put forward—not that it will improve this Bill one whit, even supposing this Bill to be improveable in the least, but at least it may avoid the possibility of doubt in the law later on.

Mr. Powell: It has been a matter of convenience for the Committee that instead of having to return to this point on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has enabled us to isolate this so as, at any rate, to get the definition of the Government's intention clear before we consider the question of substance whether, as we now understand it, this Clause ought or ought not to form part of the Bill.
But I am bound to say that the necessity of returning to it in this way and the difficulty in which the Committee has found itself emphasises two points of criticism which we have repeatedly made from both sides of the Committee during our proceedings. The first is that it is quite wrong that on a Measure of this importance, which deserves and is receiving detailed examination by this Committee, a single Under-Secretary of State should be left isolated for hour after hour on the Front Bench, with point after point being put to him, without for most of the time even a Law Officer being present,


let alone other Ministers, including senior Ministers, who could assist him.

Mr. Russell Kerr: The right hon. Gentleman should look at his own Front Bench, where there is only one Whip.

Mr. Powell: I do not think their opinions could have helped us in solving this question relating to the intention of the Government in the drafting of the Bill. It is a good and laudable custom that in a Bill of this importance more than one Minister concerned with it should be on duty, that a senior Minister normally should be present to hear the views of the Committee and the points which are raised, and that whereever matters of legal interpretation are at issue they should be heard, as I know he intently hears them when he is present, by the Solicitor-General, or by that very rare visitor to our deliberations, the Attorney-General. That is the point of our standing criticism, which has been emphasised by the simple facts of this debate.
Second, there is the grave undesirability, again particularly with a Measure of this importance, of the use of the device of Suspension whereby we go straight on from about midnight one day to sit at ten o'clock the following morning, there being no opportunity for points which have been raised to be considered or reconsidered, as is normal, between the days on which a Bill is considered in Committee. Most hon. Members, whether they have been in office or not, know how valuable are the intervening hours between successive sittings on a Bill for reading what has been said, for checking doubtful points, and for coming fresh to the Committee rearmed with advice or with further information.
I make no criticism of the Under-Secretary of State that, when we returned at ten o'clock on the morning of 2nd April to a consideration of the same question, he was, naturally, in the same position as he had been when we rose at about midnight the previous night. Had there intervened the normal period which should intervene between two sittings of a Committee, he could have come to the Committee and helped us then in the way in which he has been able to help us this evening by confirming—and confirming on renewed legal advice and con-

sultation—the interpretation which the Government put, and intended to put, upon the words of the Clause.
I come to a point which again, we have repeatedly raised. This is not the first time that we have arrived at words in the Bill which are capable, on a rational view, of more than one interpretation and of which the meaning could have been rendered absolutely unambiguous by a comparatively simple Amendment. But we are confronted all the time by the Government's determination not to have a Report stage on the Bill, which prevents their doing what a Government normally do in working through a Bill in Committee.
Normally, when a matter of doubt is raised, or when it is shown that the interpretation is ambiguous, a Government will say, "We shall look at this again, and we shall put down on Report words which will make abundantly clear what the meaning is". In the way in which they are conducting these proceedings, however, we have to rely upon the Government's dictum for the interpretation of the wording, and we have no opportunity to have clarification written into the Bill, as would happen with Measures of quite trivial importance. Indeed, we have the paradox that the more important the Bill, the less easy is it for the House and its Committee to ensure that it says what it means to say.
If this were some comparatively minor Measure going through Standing Committee upstairs, the Minister in charge, after hearing the argument put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, would say, "There is here, if not room for doubt, at least room for a more precise statement of the intention. I shall between now and the next stage of the Bill consider a form of words which will bear the intended meaning upon the face of them". That we have been denied in this case, and that we are being denied all the time by the Government's determination to have this one stage. Hence the paradox: the more important the Bill, the less the opportunity for the House to amend it.
8.15 p.m.
As to the ambiguity, if the intention were—and we now have the clearest assertion from the Government that it


is—to cover in Clause 5 all persons in receipt of salaries under the 1965 Act, there would not be the slightest difficulty in so drawing this subsection as to say so. There would be no difficulty in saying,
A peer of first creation who is for the time being

(a) a person to whom a salary is payable under the Ministerial Salaries Consolidation Act; or
(b) the holder of a high judicial office"—

and so on. One cannot attempt drafting on one's feet, but there is no doubt that the draftsman would be able by a simple amendment of the Clause to remove any possibility of dubiety about the application of the subsection.
The dubiety is real. There is no doubt that the 1965 Act deliberately avoids describing as an office the position of either the Leader of the Opposition or the Chief Opposition Whip in another place. As one reads through the 1965 Act, one finds the word "office" only in contexts which do not apply to the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Opposition Whip. Thus, the very deliberation with which the word "office" has been inserted in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) naturally leads to the conclusion which my right hon. Friend drew, that it is intended here to limit the application. As I say, there would not be the slightest difficulty in so drawing the subsection as to make clear that any one in receipt of a salary under the 1965 Act was intended to be covered by the Clause. On the drafting, therefore, my point is that we are suffering here, as we have suffered so much, from the way in which the Government are determined to force through the Bill.
Coming to the substance, here again I associate myself with my right hon. Friend's argument. If it is the Government's intention that a Leader of the Opposition in another place should be able to be over 72 or to attend fewer than one-third of the sittings of the House, and if it is the Government's view that it is reasonable that a Chief Opposition Whip in the other place should be able to be over 72 or to attend fewer than one-third of the sittings of the House—a curious sort of Chief Whip he would be in that event—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Or a good one.

Mr. Powell: —those arguments must then apply, as they apply to the tenants of the Government Front Bench, to the tenants of the Opposition Front Bench. There is no reason for singling out the Chief Whip among all the possible appointments and nominations which the Leader of an Opposition might make and endowing him with these privileges. The same argument which leads the Government to say that a Prime Minister should have freedom of choice, irrespective of age and irrespective of opportunity to attend, when he is selecting Ministers in another place, must apply to a Leader of an Opposition selecting the occupants of the Opposition Front Bench in another place.
Once again, therefore, by another route, we are led to the same basic conclusion—that these exemptions are themselves inherently absurd that, having made a voting House with these characteristics of attendance requirement and maximum age, we do something inherently absurd if we then try to pick out the sort of Member who ought to be exempt from those requirements. In its turn, the search for exemption is evidence of the inherent absurdity of the qualifications for membership of a voting House. We have got ourselves into a trap of our own making. First, we have set up a voting House with attendance and age qualifications. Then we discover that we cannot stick to those qualifications, and we have to make exceptions. Once we start to make exceptions we find that there is no category so definite that it is justifiable to limit those exceptions to that category. All roads on this Bill lead to the same conclusion: whether it is on a drafting Amendment or in a debate on whether a Clause should stand part of the Bill, the more attentively we follow through the argument the more convincingly we demonstrate the absurdity of the attempt to construct this nicely balanced House of a specific size. So, once again, whatever be the fate of this Amendment, my right hon. Friend has demonstrated the point which runs through the whole of our debates.

Mr. Michael Foot: I should like first to comment on the contribution to this debate by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock). I see that he has departed; so my comment will be extremely brief. I have always regarded


him as a most excellent and diligent Member of the House, but for some reason that we cannot fathom he has not been his usual sunny self on this Bill. It is very difficult for us to understand what has put him in this condition. I should have liked to explore that more carefully, but in his absence it would be unfair.
It would also be unfair to pursue too far the point made by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) about the status of those on the Government Front Bench who have dealt with these matters. All of us who have attended these debates agree that both Under-Secretaries of State—whether Mr. Elystan Rees or Mr. Merlyn Morgan; we know they become a little mixed up—have contributed greatly to our debates, never more so than in the reply of the Under-Secretary on this occasion, which everybody will agree was most forceful. He should not be criticised, and none of us on this side of the House is doing so. He has an extremely awkward assignment. The performance has never been better since the boy stood on the burning deck. My hon. Friend's performance as Casabianca will be remembered long in the House even when the Bill is forgotten. He has had a very difficult assignment given to him, particularly this evening, because we all know that while we have our discussions here the fate of the Bill is being settled elsewhere. He has been put in the awkward position of trying, as it were, to run a vegetarian restaurant next door to an abattoir. The stink pervades. That is why we are all a bit overcome in the Committee, wherever we sit. But my hon. Friend has perhaps survived better than some of us.
I find myself in great difficulties about the Amendment. I do not say anything about the intricate legal aspects involved, because I am not qualified to do so. It was said of a famous Lord Chancellor that if he knew a little law he would know a little of everything. I do not know a little law, and so I do not propose to pronounce on the delicate question presented to us today.
The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) moved the Amendment most powerfully, but the more powerfully he moved it the more I was dissuaded from supporting

it. The more he argued in favour of making the matter explicit and ensuring that more Members of the House of Lords should have the privileges concerned, I, as an opponent of giving any privileges, naturally felt that I had to oppose the Amendment.
I was in that position when the right hon. Gentleman sat down, but imagine my distress when the Government spokesman said that the purposes the right hon. Gentleman had in mind were already incorporated in the Bill. Having been persuaded to oppose the right hon. Gentleman, no doubt in association with my hon. Friends, I find it very difficult when I am told by my hon. Friend speaking from the Treasury Bench that all the right hon. Gentleman's purposes are already included in the Bill.
I pause for a moment to acknowledge that the paradox in the Clause is more remarkable than any of the previous paradoxes with which we have had to deal, as the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said. That we should go out of our way to ensure that a chief whip in another place should not have to attend on more than a specific number of occasions is extraordinary. It is the most extraordinary device ever invented. On that ground, too, I would be opposed to the purpose which the Government say is already included, and which the right hon. Gentleman wishes to make more specific. The Clause is in some respects the most offensive in the whole Bill. It is the one to which I object most strongly. I say that because of the evidence in the White Paper, which has been quoted on previous occasions, that one of the purposes that may be inherent in the Bill, and which underlies the Clause, is that there should be an increase in the number of Ministers in another place. That is already stated in the Appendix of the White Paper.
When this matter was raised in another place, a part of this Palace to which I would not refer when we were debating these questions, the Government spokesmen were amazed when this was pointed out to them. Now we have had a debate on the matter and have had it confirmed by my hon. Friend that the Government are thinking in terms of more Ministers in another place, and the provisions in the Clause are partly designed to make that possible.
I am bitterly opposed to any suggestion that the numbers of Ministers in a Government should be proportionately increased in the House of Lords compared with the House of Commons. I am amazed that a Labour Government should ever present to the House of Commons and the country the proposition that we should take steps to enable it to be possible or more convenient to increase the numbers of Ministers in another place. I had always thought that one of the aims of a Labour Government should be to reduce the numbers of Ministers in another place. Many of us can recall the occasions when important appointments were made in another place to which strong objection was taken by Labour Party spokesmen when the Labour Party was in Opposition. I do not see why we should connive at a system which would encourage the appointment of more Ministers in another place now. I am strongly opposed to the whole Clause, which makes that possible, and therefore I am naturally opposed to the Amendment, which would make it certain and specific that the privileges would apply not only to the increased numbers of Ministers but also to some members of the Opposition. The greater the number of people who will have these special privileges in another place, the more will the Government be encouraged to make appointments in the other House, whether those persons are in the Opposition or in the Government.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point but, accepting that he feels these privileges should not be given, and bearing in mind that the Government say that they intend to give them, is it not better that they should be spelt out clearly for all to see, as the Amendment proposes, than that they should go through on the basis of no more than a Ministerial statement and the ambiguous phraseology in the Statute?

Mr. Foot: I understand the argument. On other Clauses right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have argued for making our intentions clear, and this is a good general principle which certainly applies to the Bill, but on many occasions arguments on both sides have to be carefully

balanced. I recognise the case which the right hon. Gentleman has made for clarity. I recognise further that the Government say that he is merely spelling out what the Government intend to do. But I am opposed to what the Government propose to do, and I must therefore also be opposed to the right hon. Gentleman who wants to spell it out even more clearly. In this matter, when the Government are engaged in doing something which I find reprehensible, the more doubt the better. If there is some doubt we might retrieve the situation, but if we establish absolute certainty then we shall encourage the Government to make more appointments to Ministries in another place.

[Sir BARNETT JANNER in the Chair]

8.30 p.m.

In dealing with this Clause earlier, my hon. Friend speaking from the Treasury Bench quoted from a book to show the numbers of members in another place who had been at various times members of Administrations. He quoted those figures to show that under a Labour Government the total number of peers in another place had been reduced as compared with Conservative Administrations. I am not surprised that that is so. I am surprised that the Government propose to put that situation in reverse and increase the number of Ministers in another place.

My hon. Friend on that occasion was good enough to hand me the book from which he was quoting, and I was fascinated to read of the occasions when the country has thought it necessary to have large numbers of peers in the other place. It is quite true that the highest numbers were at times of Conservative administration, but on one or two occasions the number of Ministers in another place was reduced to a very small figure, or even to nil. Those happened to be occasions when this country had, as some might think, the most effective Governments of this century. On the two occasions when the very life of the country was threatened. In the First World War and in the Second World War, the number of Ministers in another place was reduced almost to nil.

During a period in the Second World War the number of Cabinet Ministers in


another place was reduced to nil, and during the First World War was much lower than normal. This is a powerful argument on the side of those who are arguing that it is a disgraceful procedure to be thinking of enlarging the number of Ministers, particularly Cabinet Ministers, in another place.

Mr. Birch: Is the hon. Gentleman correct in saying that there were no Ministers in another place? What about Lord Woolton and Lord Salisbury?

Mr. Foot: If the right hon. Gentleman had the good fortune to be able to consult the work of reference from which my hon. Friend quoted and which he handed to me, he would see that there were two Administrations in this century when it was not thought necessary or desirable to have Cabinet Ministers in the House of Lords. On one occasion the number was nil and on another occasion there were only two. During the Second World War in one of the then Mr. Winston Churchill's Governments there were no Cabinet Ministers in another place. The country managed to get along. I suppose it was justifying the old Gilbert and Sullivan chorus that the House of Lords throughout the war did nothing in particular and did it very well. The House of Lords did not interfere with the nation's affairs, and that is a situation at which it will be most commendable to arrive.
If the Amendment is carried, it will be made even clearer that the special privileges to be accorded to certain members of the House of Lords are to be given not only to Ministers and Law Lords and ex-Ministers and ex-Law Lords, but also to Leaders of the Opposition and Chief Whips in another place and, presumably, although this is not quite clear, to ex-Leaders of the Opposition and ex-Chief Whips in another place. In any case, the effect of the Amendment, or of the Clause as unamended, is to enlarge the numbers who will have these special privileges in another place.
Unless I hear arguments on the merits of the matter which persuade me otherwise, I fear that on this occasion I shall have to resist the Amendment, but I hope, to make my position absolutely logical, to be able to throw out the Clause as well.

Mr. Birch: I am glad that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) will be able to ingratiate himself with his Whips on one occasion during our discussion of the Bill. I understand that he is to vote on the Government's side.
He speculated about the position of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock). I think that the view of the Liberals is clear: what they want to do is to get rid of patronage. The only patronage they have at the moment is the appointment of one delegate to the Council of Europe, and they got an interesting recruit to the party—I do not say that there was any direct connection—when they grasped a reasonably well-covered herring in the form of Lord Gladwyn for that job. They see other prospects for the future. At any rate, they have something to give.
The Clause is clearly an example of loose drafting which ought to be put right. It will not be put right, because the Home Secretary has laid it down that he will not accept any Amendment. I consider it insulting to the Committee that the Home Secretary does not turn up to the debates. When I first got to the House, Ministers considered it their first duty to be on the Front Bench when their own subjects were being discussed. They did not say that they had to attend a committee meeting elsewhere, or that they had drunk too much gripe water, or that they were trying to become leaders of their parties, or whatever it might be. They were on the Bench available and arguing, and that is where they ought to be.
I acquit the Home Secretary of deliberately insulting the Committee. The fact is that he does not understand the Bill. He was present on very few occasions when Corporation Tax was being discussed, and it had to be amended 400 times and is still in chaos. He was margarine in the hands of the Hungarian buffoon. But out of respect to the Committee he is probably reading the debates, and I therefore ask hon. Members to make their points as clear as possible so that even a bonehead can understand them.

Mr. Sheldon: My own view of the Liberals' position and the reason why we see so little of them is that they are accepting very willingly the patronage


being offered to them, as the right hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) said. My suspicion is that they are feeling somewhat guilty about that and that it is that feeling of guilt which has driven them from the Chamber so many times. They have said that they consider this to be an unimportant Measure, but we all know that the measure of patronage offered to them is millions of times greater than anything they have had in the recent past, and so they cannot be as indifferent as they make out. It is this feeling of guilt which is responsible for their rather petulant behaviour throughout our discussions of the Bill.
Our minute examination of the Bill has shown that the Committee has greater knowledge of the Measure and its effects than have the Government and the Opposition Front Bench. Although I join my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) in congratulating the junior Ministers on their fortitude in withstanding the assaults which we have been making on the Bill and its absurdities, it is clear that the Measure did not receive adequate preparation. We thought that it would be amended where it was shown to be faulty, but it is clear that that will not happen.
I cannot accept the proposition that the Opposition Leader and Chief Whip in another place should be called ex-Ministers for the purpose of the Clause. If we say that they should vote, we shall be saying that anybody who, for however brief a period, can call himself the Opposition Leader or Chief Whip will have not only the vote but the money. This is a further condemnation of the status of the lower tier. In other words, while we shall call anybody who has been a law lord, an Opposition Leader and many other types of Minister, a Minister for the purpose of voting, he may also have the money, which means that the lower tier will be relegated to an even lower status. The Government are implicitly accepting this lower status of non-voting peers, and that has been established today.
We must consider the ways in which voting peers will be created outside the normal manner of their creation. According to the White Paper, voting peers were to be created by the methods outlined. Our investigation of the Bill—we do not apologise for examining it critically—is

revealing many other ways in which peers with voting rights may be created. For example, when discussing the previous Amendment we found that by extending the period of registration, voting rights could be given. We have seen that in certain circumstances ex-Ministers, ex-Law Lords will be given voting rights. We now see that ex-Opposition Whips, ex-Leader of the House of Lords can also be given these voting rights. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) pointed out, lightheartedly, but truly, people in these positions could be created over and again to increase the number.
This kind of attitude might have been all right when it was expected that the House of Lords was to remain the gentlemanly Chamber it is at present, but once we give the Lords the powers to which we shall come later in the Bill, it will not remain a gentlemanly Chamber but will become a centre of power. Legislation governing such a centre of power needs to be examined carefully to make sure how Members of the House of Lords are to be created.
It is not enough to say, "We will leave it to see how it works out". We know that what we decide in the Bill will settle the fate of the House of Lords for many years to come. These Parliament Bills are difficult to get through, as they should be, and their amendment must of course be difficult. Therefore, proper consideration and attention to detail should be given to such legislation rather than that it should be rushed through.
8.45 p.m.
We are here dealing with the serious matter of how peers are to be appointed. The White Paper was a gentlemen's agreement between the two Front Benches as to how it was all to be divided up. We find a whole range of other ways open to peers towards becoming voting peers outside the terms of that agreement.
When one is dealing with a centre of power, one must look at the methods which are to be used. It is not an academic argument. One cannot have a gentlemanly Chamber when that Chamber is a centre of power. The methods which are being discovered through the ingenuity of members of this Committee will in due course be discovered by Members of the House of Lords responding inevitably, as


they are bound to respond, to the demands and dictates of power operating in the House of Lords.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Barnett Janner): Order. I ask the hon. Member to keep more to the terms of the Amendment. He is going a little wide.

Mr. Sheldon: I was trying to point out that there are other methods of creating voting peers. In discussing the rights of peers to vote we should be careful to know the means by which every peer is entitled to vote. We should not leave it to chance or to cosy arrangements made between the two Front Benches, but should examine it in great detail.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Member must try to keep to the matter of payment referred to in the Amendment. He is going rather wide.

Mr. Sheldon: Thank you, Sir Barnett. I was trying to deal with the position of the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Opposition Whip in another place receiving payment, thereby qualifying under the Ministerial Salaries Consolidation Act, and with the situation which will occur when there is a change in the people engaged in those offices, thus increasing the number of voting peers in the House of Lords.

Mr. John Lee: Suppose the Leader of the Opposition or the Chief Opposition Whip in the House of Lords was a rich man and decided to forgo his salary, would that disqualify him from enjoying the privileges which ostensibly are accorded to him under the Ministerial Salaries Consolidation Act?

Mr. Sheldon: That is a valid point for which I am grateful. It is worthy of a reply from the Under-Secretary of State.
If there are ways in which Members of the House of Lords can obtain voting rights in any manner other than those general ways specified in the White Paper, any ingenuity which we can use to discover such means should be used by the Committee so that we can examine all the possibilities which inevitably will be discovered in the House of Lords. On a matter like this, we must make sure that there is a proper regulation of all the ways in which Members of the House of Lords can obtain voting rights. There

must be no shadow of doubt at the end of these discussions that tucked away in one of the Clauses there may be provision for the creation of voting peers by means of a strategem which we have not discovered. It is right that we should spend time in delineating every way in which such voting peers may obtain their right to vote.
The right to vote is the right to receive money. In discussing these political pensioners, which was the phrase used by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), we must always be aware of the many strands of patronage which run throughout this Palace—the House of Commons, the House of Lords, Ministers and ex-Ministers.
Throughout our debates I have tried to avoid any charge of direct filibustering. Therefore, I should like to draw attention column 530 of HANSARD for 2nd April. The Under-Secretary of State said:
I recollect an occasion when for two hours and 20 minutes all the speeches about the Bill came from my side of the Committee.
The Chairman then said:
I hope that the Under-Secretary will not proceed in that vein.
I am then reported as having said:
Because it will happen again"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd April, 1969; Vol. 781, c. 530.]
It would appear from that as if I were threatening to speak at great length purely for the purpose of delay. I took up this matter with the Editor of HANSARD earlier this evening, and he accepts that this comment was wrongly attributed to me. I wish to bring this matter to the Committee's attention because I think that it will accept that this is very much out of character. Perhaps it was a remark of one of my hon. Friends. I have never threatened, or even vaguely threatened, unnecessarily to delay the proceedings. I have always argued, and will continue to argue, that the Bill should receive the greatest scrutiny of which we are capable. This I have tried to do, though frequently, I must confess, to the annoyance of certain of my hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench.
There have been three main reasons for my opposition to this part of the Bill. First, I have been most concerned about


the powers of the House of Commons being diminished as the powers of the House of Lords are increased. I have always felt that the two went hand in hand. Once we increase the effective powers of the House of Lords, we reduce the effective powers of the House of Commons. Secondly, patronage permeates the political life of Westminster—in the House of Commons, the House of Lords, among Ministers and ex-Ministers.
The third has been the quality of decision taking, which has been quite deplorable. The way in which I always foresaw we should have gone about it was quite different—purely as a question——

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Barnett Janner): Order. The hon. Member is speaking on a matter of a general nature. Would he please direct himself to the very limited terms of this Amendment?

Mr. Sheldon: Thank you, Sir Barnett. I thought that perhaps my general comment included the question of the Chief Opposition Whip and the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Lords and the way in which the decision concerning these two was taken—or possibly lack of decision. Possibly these were overlooked. I am not in a position to decide that categorically. What I say is that the quality of the decision was bad, the investigation was bad, the preparation was bad, the international comparison was bad, and a survey of the attitudes of peers was not undertaken at all. There were so many aspects which were bad and wrong and needed to be exposed, and not just in connection with this Bill, but all Bills, so that this might stand as a marker for anybody who comes to the House of Commons with a Bill as ill prepared as this one was——

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is going too far. He is going even wider than he was before. I am sure that he understands the Amendment very well. I ask him please to come back to the Amendment.

Mr. Sheldon: I was only stating where I started from in this criticism of this part of the Bill. We see from the Amendment that the Chief Opposition Whip

and the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Lords are virtually to be called ex-Ministers and to receive the rights, including, of course, the voting rights, and salaries of ex-Ministers, and this includes also the possibility of accepting the extended period if they may so decide. It places them in this very special category, this very honoured category of Chief Opposition Whips, bishops, lawyers, Ministers; and these people make a very big loophole, which was not properly anticipated by the Government. Thus we have a very special category of voting peers plus ex-Ministers and lawyers and ex-bishops—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and Leaders and Chief Whips of the Opposition. Thus we put people of this kind in a very privileged position. The constitution which we are devising for these Opposition people, bishops, lawyers, ex-Ministers, is almost a fifteenth century kind of constitution. There is nothing here about engineers, industrialists, trade unionists, and so on——

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Member will agree that this has nothing to do with the Amendment. I do not know how he connects what he is saying with the terms of the Amendment. I think that, on reflection, he will agree that he is going far beyond the Amendment when he talks about engineers.

Mr. Sheldon: I was trying to point out, obviously not very successfully, the reason for my being against this Amendment—that it would put Chief Opposition Whips and Leaders of the Opposition in the House of Lords into this category of a kind which I should have thought more suitable for a fifteenth century constitution than for the constitution about which we should be thinking at present. I think it very wrong to make a special privileged class of this kind.
The next question I would ask about this position of the Chief Opposition Whip and the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Lords is, was this part of the deal? We know from the discussions which have taken place and from the acceptance of this provision by the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) that the White Paper represents the bargain that was made, but the White Paper says nothing about the position of ex-Chief Opposition Whips and ex-Opposition Leaders. We are


therefore entitled to ask the Official Opposition—though they are missing at the moment—whether this was part of the deal which they accepted. Or did they overlook these matters of detail and think that as the House of Lords is conducted in such a gentlemanly manner, these issues could be put right later?
Did they think that if there were any loopholes which would enable Members of the House of Lords to be given voting rights at a subsequent stage, that did not matter very much? Did they think that if the figure of 230 could be changed because of these ex-Leaders of the Opposition and ex-Opposition Chief Whips, that did not matter very much? Did they approach the deal in that way? Our belief must be that they did. We can choose between believing that they discussed this matter thoroughly and decided that as the House of Lords is a gentlemanly place it does not matter about getting these details right, or believing that they came to some agreement to limit the application of this provision. If the latter is the case, it is not part of the Bill, nor is it part of the Preamble, let alone being part of the White Paper.
9.0 p.m.
We should be told quite clearly what discussions there were between the two Front Benches about the position of ex-Leaders of the Opposition and ex-Chief Opposition Whips in the House of Lords. If they are to have this political pension, if it is being said that their vote is essential, then not only is a blow being struck against the two-tier system—because we have known all along that this issue was inadequately examined and ill-prepared—but, by striking such a blow, and by bringing these people in as voting peers, we are being asked to accept that the authority of the lower class of nonvoting peer, because of the ease with which voting peers can be created, is very much diminished.
By showing the ways in which peers can be made voting peers by changing the Whip, even for a day or two, we are showing that some of the ways in which the Opposition, possibly under some duress, but under the political realities which may be present at any time, might wish to act. We are dealing with situations which cannot be foreseen because they will not occur within the

next six months or a year, but many years from now, but still long before any further changes are likely to be made as a result of the experience gained by the Government in these matters. The difficulty of changing the rules is becoming established, and I consider it disgraceful that the two Front Benches did not realise how difficult it would be to change the rules once they had been laid down.
If the two Front Benches do not realise that it is a simple matter to create voting peers by selecting those who had occupied the position of Leader of the Opposition or Chief Opposition Whip in the other place, they have failed in their duty to provide a workable House of Lords to act as a second Chamber. And if they have failed in their duty to do that, they have failed to understand the way in which the House of Lords could become an important part of the legislative machinery of this country. These are the absurdities of a Bill which was inadequately thought out but on which we have made some impression by our perseverance. We have shown the Government that, if for no other reason than the ill-thought-out way in which they are trying to change the constitution, the Bill should be thrown out.

Mr. Neave: I have always shared the suspicions of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) about the Bill, and I am even more suspicious after having heard the Government's answer to the Amendment. Backbenchers should force the Government to withdraw the Bill, but that is a subject on which I should not perhaps dwell.
We have been told that the Bill covers what the Amendment intends; but the Government are not right, because the position of the Leader of the Opposition and Opposition Chief Whip in the other place is not the same as that of Ministers under the 1965 Act. The Government are in a dangerous position in creating this dubiety. Those two people do not hold an office under the 1965 Act. In that Act they are described not as office holders but as people paid salaries. Ministers are referred to as office holders. So the Government have told the Committee something which is untrue—that the people referred to are in the same position as Ministers. They are not.
It is important that the Solicitor-General should acquaint himself with the Act quoted in subsection (1)(a)—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Are not Ministers appointed by the Prime Minister under the 1965 Ministerial Salaries Consolidation Act? Are we to take it that the Chief Opposition Whip and Leader of the Opposition in another place will now be appointed by the Prime Minister?

Mr. Neave: They will certainly enjoy his patronage. More extraordinarily, not only will the present holders of those offices be able to go over the age of 72 and attend fewer than one-third of the sittings, but the Prime Minister will allow them to do so when they retire or resign.
The serious point is that clarity is essential. The Government are wrong and it would be better to specify the position of these people to avoid doubt. The Under-Secretary of State said about an hour ago that there is a major distinction, in that, although these people are salaried, their salary ends with the dissolution of Parliament, and they cease to be qualified peers at a different stage from Ministers. There is a definite distinction in that case. But it is not so serious as to say that they are treated precisely the same as Ministers. They cannot be treated precisely the same as Ministers because they are not covered as office holders by the 1965 Act. Therefore, they are not within Clause 5(1,a), and the Amendment ought to be carried.

Mr. Heffer: I should like to make a comment about the Liberal Party and about something said by the right hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch). Concerning patronage, the right hon. Gentleman said that he understood that one great interest was the fact that the Liberals could appoint somebody to the Council of Europe and that their representative was Lord Gladwyn. It is an interesting point, because the Council of Europe is supposed to be a body of European Parliamentarians—a thoroughly democratic body. The Liberal Party, which has about a dozen members in the House of Commons, although we do not see much of them, is so dedicated to the principles of democracy that it selects somebody from the other place rather than a representative from this place. I have always regarded this as strange

indeed, especially when we look at the record of the Liberal Party concerning peers.
I have just read a very interesting book by a man called Ramsay Muir putting the Liberal case for the reform of the second Chamber. He argues strongly against the principle of having peers there because of their birth. Therefore, it is strange that the Liberals should appoint somebody from the other place. Obviously I cannot go into this, Sir Barnett, because you are looking at me rather fiercely. I have a feeling that if I persisted I should be brought to order. However, I felt that I should make this comment about the Liberal Party.
I should also like to comment on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) when he corrected an observation in HANSARD. I think that I said, "Because it will happen again." I should like to make it clear that no one in his right mind has ever suggested that any right hon. or hon. Member throughout the whole period of discussion in Committee has filibustered. It is an absolute disgrace and a scandal that anybody should think that any right hon. or hon. Member would dream of filibustering.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Barnett Janner): Order. I thought that the hon. Member was anxious to help, but he is getting off the Amendment now.

Mr. Heffer: I accept your ruling, Sir Barnett. I was merely making the point that it would be scandalous if anybody suggested that there was any filibustering. We have tried to probe the Bill in depth. This is the way that we should look at the whole matter, and this is the way that it has been done. We have tried to examine every facet of the Bill in the greatest possible detail because it is a constitutional Bill, and that is what we should do in relation to the Clause.
9.15 p.m.
This discussion has me a little confused; so although I do not agree with the principle of the Amendment it might not be a bad idea to spell out what is supposed to be the accepted principle of the Bill. Let us get the position clear. The Ministerial Salaries Consolidation Act, 1965, makes it clear that a Minister must continue to be paid as a Minister


because he continues as a Minister until a General Election has taken place. It is said that that is not the case with the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition Chief Whip in another place, and that on the dissolution of Parliament their salaries stop. The Bill does not say that; so we need clarification.
Those people should either continue to be paid, as Ministers are, or the Bill should clearly state that they are not to receive such payment. Quite a bit of money is involved. The Leader of the Opposition in the other place receives £2,000 per annum and the Chief Opposition Whip gets, I think, £1,800 a year. If the election campaign goes on for three or four weeks, quite a fair amount of money is paid out to the Member. They ought to know just where they stand. It is said that a noble lord may be a rich man; but he may not be a rich man, and in those circumstances he must know where he stands.
Without going into the whole argument of where we ourselves stand in this connection, I believe it to be a bit of a scandal that immediately on the dissolution of Parliament Members of Parliament do not receive any pay. We are supposed to live for three or four weeks without anything coming in. I do not know how we do it, but we seem to manage——

Mr. Stephen Hastings: Savings.

Mr. Heffer: Exactly, but we do not get much chance of saving, especially if there is to be increased taxation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) spoke about an "avoidance of doubt clause", and we certainly need to have the position made clear for all to understand.
One reason for my welcoming the tabling of this Amendment is that it appears to tell us something that previously we did not know was going on. It is good that these things should now come out into the open. In fact, the whole Bill and the type of probing Amendments we have tabled, have brought out all sorts of aspects of life in the other place, and of life here, that we did not know existed. We should argue against the whole thing in principle. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw

Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) said, the Clause perpetuates a wrong principle. I am against this, because I believe that we wish to diminish rather than strengthen the powers of the other place.
It might not be a bad idea to spell it out as an "avoidance of doubt clause". However, such a provision in the Bill, although unseen and not in the terms of the Amendment, would mean a strengthening of the other place, and we should oppose it for that reason, if for no other. I therefore urge that we do not accept the Amendment. But, then, we should not accept the Clause as a whole. I know that I cannot argue that at this stage, but I hope that in the main debate on the Clause I shall be able to argue at greater length why I believe that the Clause should not be in the Bill.
It has been said that the Home Secretary has not been present because he does not understand the Bill. In defence of my absent right hon. Friend, I do not think he is alone in that. The maximum vote in support of the Bill has been about 150. From that I assume that the majority of hon. Members neither understand the Bill nor care about it. They show their opposition to it by complete indifference. This should be a sufficient argument not only for dropping the Clause but for dropping the whole Bill. I cannot commend the Amendment in principle, but if we are to have the Bill, which I hope we are not, it would not be a bad idea to spell out the principle in the way that the Amendment does.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: I distinctly smell error in the speeches which have just been delivered by the hon. Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). The object of back benchers is to help our leaders to clarify what the Bill is about. I am sure that the honourable intention of those who have tabled the Amendment is to make the intentions of the Government and of the Opposition Front Bench clear beyond a peradventure.
I am sorry that there has been an attack on the Liberal Party, because no one spoke more fervently about the abhorrent absurdities of these proposals than the late Lady Violet Bonham Carter. No one made more forthright and stinging speeches, speeches which shook everyone in the House of Lords.
I was unable to follow some of the references of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne to the question of ex-bishops—or, should I say, unfrocked bishops—being available. Such things would be far more appropriate to some of the more difficult periods of Christendom—the Diet of Worms, real periods of turmoil and despair. I therefore could not understand the hon. Gentleman's allusions to the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, suave and civilised as they were.
I come to the very important point which has been underlined with great clarity in the Amendment. It is to make it absolutely clear to all concerned that these noble lords should be paid and that they should be in this elevated and exceptional position in another place. In previous speeches I and others have referred to the enormous burden which has been put on the back benchers in this House. The back benchers have been asked to draft a sort of written constitution for another place. I think it will be agreed that this is the most time-wasting of all procedures. But if the Government are going to come forward with this sort of Bill which is so vague and so full of potential abuse, naturally the patriotic Members on both sides of the House of Commons will feel that they must cross every "t" and dot every "i" and make sure that this will not be a sort of rump House of Commons, a collection of people who are shoved on the back benches. That is why we have taken so long. We are going to deal with this Bill line by line——

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Barnett Janner): Order. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is quite dealing with the Amendment. Will he be good enough to come back to the Amendment which is in quite general terms?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On a point of order, Sir Barnett. I understood that my right hon. Friend was trying to explain the purpose of the Amendment, which is to put beyond doubt that which, on all views, is a very doubtful part of the Bill. In my respectful submission, my right hon. Friend is entitled to do this.

Mr. Fraser: If I may continue on this point, having the Amendment now before

me, I should like to deal with its phraseology. It starts by saying:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any Act
Nothing could be more precise than that. This carries the Government a good way and makes their position absolutely plain. The Amendment goes on to say:
… the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Lords …
—that gentleman is defined here—
and the Chief Opposition Whip in that House for the time being …
This is a point on which we ought to have a further Amendment. "For the time being" could, I think, be misinterpreted, and perhaps on Report we should bring forward a further Amendment to make even clearer what "for the time being" means in this instance. I am sure you will agree, Sir Barnett, that this phrase is not entirely clear.
We do not know how the Front Bench opposite move. They obviously move in a very mysterious way. A good many of them who should not be here are here, and many of them who should be here are not here. Therefore, we must regard these words "for the time being" as one of great importance. I hope my right hon. Friend will agree that on Report we can put down a further Amendment to make clear to the public and to both Front Benches what "for the time being" in this instance could and should mean.
Otherwise, I am sure it will be agreed that this Amendment is crystal clear. It lays down precisely where the Government should stand and, although we may be against the Bill in its entirety and although the Government may be prepared to steamroller the Bill through, the duty of backbenchers is to make it absolutely clear where we as a Parliament stand. Therefore, I hope for the purpose of clarity, that the Amendment will be accepted.

Mr. John Mendelson: Unlike the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser), I have had this Amendment in front of me for the past two hours. I am therefore perhaps in an easier position to say that I rise to oppose the Amendment.
I find it a little difficult to accommodate some of the arguments advanced by some of my hon. Friends with whom I


normally agree on a large variety of subjects equally as important as this Bill—indeed, more important. I think it is time that a certain amount of logic was applied to the matter. The right hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) referred to the absence of the Home Secretary and implied that we should all be in a much better position to see clearly the implications of the Clause and of the Amendment if my right hon. Friend were present. That is going a little far in being unfair to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. How on earth could he be in a better position than anyone else in the Committee to explain what was in the mind of the right hon. Members for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) and for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) when they concocted the provisions of the Bill in cahoots with my right hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench?
9.30 p.m.
What is missing in the debate is any reference to the absentees on the Opposition Front Bench. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite have talked about Liberal absentees and all sorts of other absentees. It is easy enough to fight the Liberals, who cannot defend themselves as they are not here at the moment, but there has been no reference to some of the chief culprits who negotiated and insisted upon many of the Bill's provisions which hon. Members opposite are trying to amend.
I cannot understand how hon. Members opposite can allow every opportunity to pass without demanding the presence of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in this Committee. He ought to be present all the time, and he ought to be called upon to intervene frequently to explain how some of these proposals came about. I have not been in the House for very long—this is my fourth Parliament, and there are many hon. Members present who have been here much longer—but I recall what was said by some hon. Members opposite who sat on Standing Committees with me, sometimes, Sir Barnett, when you were Chairman. We always demanded the presence of the responsible leaders on both sides. I see here the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) who once shared with me the pleasant experience of 13 weeks in Committee on the Steel Bill. He was always one of the first to demand the presence of the Front Bench spokesmen

on both sides. Yet that Bill, a very good Bill to nationalise the steel industry, was entirely a Government Bill. Now, however, he sits in silence, never demanding the presence of his right hon. Friend, when we are considering a Measure with which both Front Benches are associated.

Mr. Peyton: The hon. Gentleman has reminded me of the experience we both had on the Steel Bill, but he must be aware that the demands which we made on that occasion were, as they are now, for the presence of Ministers. It is one of our charges that Ministers are not present. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary is conspicuous by his absence, as is the Secretary of State for Social Services, yet they are the parents of the Bill, and my right hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench——

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Barnett Janner): Order. This is a rather long intervention—almost a speech—and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will come quickly to the point.

Mr. Peyton: As always, Sir Barnett, I bow to your injunction. But I was challenged, and I felt that I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friends, though they may have been misguided enough to agree with some of the proposals in the White Paper, had no part—I hazard more than a guess at this—in drafting the Bill.

Mr. Mendelson: Throughout our proceedings in the Committee to which I referred, the hon. Gentleman always insisted that both Front Benches should be manned. I recall that very well, and I am sure that it will be within the recollection of other hon. Members who sat on that Committee. The hon. Gentleman cannot ride away from the challenge by saying that it is the Home Secretary's absence which is regretted. My right hon. Friend has attended a good many sittings of the Committee. He has representatives from his Department on the Front Bench, and he is entitled to divide the work as he has done. I must say that his absence grieves me very much, as it grieves others. We should much rather have the prince and not the dukes, counts and lesser nobility conducting our proceedings. That is a matter of grief, but not of constitutional impropriety. Right hon. Members opposite should not make too much of it.
What matters is the Amendment and the implications behind it. I am amazed at the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and his hon. Friends who support the Amendment, because for so many weeks they have argued against patronage. They were putting forward their objection to what they thought to be the chief fault in the White Paper and the Bill long before Easter. They said that that fault was the enormous increase in patronage on the part of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

[Mr. SYDNEY IRVING in the Chair]

They never very much frightened me with that argument. I have always maintained that I did not regard the patronage issue as the most important in these discussions. I have always been concerned with powers and have made it quite clear that my chief objection is that what had been a politically incredible Chamber would, if the Bill were ever enacted, become a politically credible Chamber, and I have quoted Lord Mancroft, one of the most active and best-informed Members of the other place. But the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends have for a long time argued that what is most objectionable in the proposals is the vast extension of patronage, and for them to say that they are highly dissatisfied with what they call the enormous amount of patronage embodied in the proposals but now to want to add to it—

Mr. Ian Gilmour: Surely there is nothing inconsistent in saying, first, that we are against the extension of patronage but, second, that if patronage is to be extended there should be equality of patronage?

The Chairman: Order. I find difficulty in seeing the relevance of the remarks made by the two hon. Gentlemen to the Amendment, which is concerned with the Leader of the Opposition and Chief Opposition Whip in the House of Lords.

Mr. Mendelson: With great respect, Mr. Irving, I had been addressing myself to the Amendment from the beginning in the few minutes for which I have been speaking. I carefully prepared what I would say on the matter, and I am

not just thinking on my feet. I am trying to arrive at the point of substance which I wish to put in the way that I have thought it out, and I think that it would do no harm if I were allowed to do so.
It is not legitimate for the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour) to say, "I can be against a thing in principle, and call it evil, but if it is to happen anyway I want my share of it". He would not apply that argument to drug traffic.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not addressing himself to the Amendment.

Mr. Mendelson: With respect, surely the Amendment tries to extend the range of patronage, because it introduces yet another dimension by demanding that the Leader of the Opposition and Chief Opposition Whip in another place be included? I ask you to bear with me, Mr. Irving. We have been discussing the matter for two hours and it has been held to be in order all the time that this addition to the proposed patronage is the subject of the Amendment. I am not trying to be disrespectful.

The Chairman: Order. The Amendment is merely to clarify subsection (a), to make sure, if it does not appear to be obvious there, that they must be included. The hon. Gentleman is not addressing himself to the Amendment.

Mr. Mendelson: If by accepting the Amendment the Committee made clear that these individuals were to be included, that would be an extension of the patronage proposed in the Bill. What is the object of making twice certain that they are included if that is not the purpose behind it? That must be quite clear.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: The hon. Gentleman remarked that we would not extend this principle to drug traffic. That is a bad parallel, because our objection to patronage is that it increases the power of the Executive, whereas the Amendment is aimed at increasing the power of the Opposition, which might have the result of curtailing the Executive's power.

Mr. Mendelson: No, it would not have the result of curtailing the powers of the Executive. The hon. Gentleman is on an important point. The whole of the


argument in Committee has been that by this arrangement between the two Front Benches and involving the Leader of the Liberal Party, the extension of patronage is universal. The fears that have been expressed in the debates, to most of which I have listened, have been in that direction. It has been said that it concerns not only the Prime Minister but also the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party. Allegations have been made that the Liberal Party will have far too much patronage under these proposals, more than that to which they are entitled by their representation in the elected Chamber.
If clarity is the only purpose of the proposal, then a large structure has been erected on a narrow base. Knowing the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), I do not believe that he put down these words merely to argue a narrow point. He wanted to highlight the whole position which lies behind the Amendment——

The Chairman: Order. I cannot be sure what were the right hon. Gentleman's intentions, but the Amendment is a narrow Amendment, and the hon. Member must speak to it.

Mr. Mendelson: I am attempting to speak to it——

Sir Knox Cunningham: I have been listening with great attention to what the hon. Gentleman has been saying about patronage. Is he able to help me on this? After the next General Election, it may be that there will be other parties besides the Liberal Party, the Labour Party and the Conservative Party. How will they be placed in relation to patronage?

Mr. Mendelson: I should be led out of order if I tried to speculate on what might happen then. We must leave it to the Treasury Bench and the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) to explain what they had in mind should such a contingency arise. I am not worried about that because I am convinced that the Government will be returned with a suitable majority in the next General Election, with the Conservative Party again forming the official Opposition.
To return to the substance of the Amendment, I welcome the arrival of the right hon. Member for Barnet, whose absence I have just regretted in friendly terms. We shall now be able to work much better, since most of the information which we might be lacking will be forthcoming from that source, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be active in our proceedings.
The clarification and the highlighting implied in the Amendment seek to ensure that the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Lords and the Chief Opposition Whip should receive completely equal treatment to that accorded to Ministers of the Crown. If it does not mean that, it does not mean anything. It is an attempt to make wider the net of patronage thereby implied. What are the purposes of an Opposition that is so eager—and the Amendment comes from the Opposition Benches——

Mr. Arthur Lewis: My hon. Friend may not have been here when the Under-Secretary of State said that he was against the Amendment because there was no need for it. The Bill as it stands provides for what the Amendment seeks to do, so if the Amendment is wrong, as I think it is, the Bill must be wrong.

Mr. Mendelson: It has often happened in the past that a Minister of the Crown, of whatever party, has argued that an Amendment is completely unnecessary. This is not an uncommon experience, but I am not thereby persuaded that the Amendment is not worthy of debate. The proceedings of the Committee would be reduced to a negligible performance if, when a Member of the Treasury Bench said that in his opinion the substance of an amendment was already implied in the Bill, we did not make a searching inquiry as to the purposes of the amendment and whether we approved of it. After all, it is the Committee which must decide on the Amendment, not the Treasury Bench by itself.
9.45 p.m.
Whatever view one might take about the Government's approach, it is inconsistent of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames to press the Amendment. I hope that he will withdraw it and not press it to a Division, in view of his past statements. A consistent


case has been built up in our proceedings on other Amendments. Although I do not share the anxiety of some hon. Members opposite about patronage, I have thought that a consistent case had been made which was logical in itself and which could stand the examination both of those who will consider these proceedings and of later historians who will consider the whole procedure on the Bill. I should dislike finding a highly inconsistent breach in the development of this case by the introduction of something which was completely contradictory to that which had previously been argued.

Mr. Iremonger: It cannot be patronage for the Prime Minister to have to give powers and privileges to persons who by definition are members of the party in opposition to him in the other place.

Mr. Mendelson: I do not want to be led into discussing that, because it would be wide of the mark. What I am concerned with is that, under the guise of seeking clarification, an Amendment which seems to be dealing with words and not with principles introduces a contradictory principle which is used as a basis to attack the Bill. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Amendment and not to insist upon it, because highly important principles have been developed during our debates with which the Amendment is inconsistent.
I do not take a lighthearted view of our debates on the many Amendments which we have discussed. It is important that the conclusions reached in Committee should stand up by themselves. But if the right hon. Gentleman persists with the Amendment, I shall oppose it and I shall call upon those of my hon. Friends who may be listening to my advice, but whose number is habitually limited, although there are some of them, I hope, to join me in opposing the Amendment. Nor shall I be particularly discouraged

by the fact that my hon. Friend on the Treasury Bench will probably join me on this occasion. There are a number of points on which it is natural that the Treasury Bench and those of my persuasion in these matters should be on the same sides. Alas, there have been some occasions on which I have found myself on the other side of the argument.

Some colleagues of mine on the Treasury Bench are coming into the Chamber. They are showing a slight sense of impatience. They are showing a certain selectivity by coming in as I am speaking, for they have missed the brilliant contributions of my hon. Friends. I hope that they will remain to listen to the later proceedings without taking an active part in them.

The Amendment seems to be a case of misguided enthusiasm. In the proper anxiety which the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames has shown throughout these proceedings for making the Bill absolutely clear, even when it was so full of fog that it seemed impossible to make it clear—and he has been successful many times—he has moved an Amendment which is inconsistent with the earlier argument. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) started the work of research and has done wonderfully well, so much so that we have discovered many things which we did not know when these proceedings started. But that is no reason for showing exaggerated enthusiasm, and I therefore hope that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Charles Grey (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): Mr. Charles Grey (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 134, Noes 54.

Division No. 154.]
AYES
[9.49 p.m.


Anderson, Donald
Buchan, Norman
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)


Archer, Peter
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Carmichael, Neil
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Delargy, Hugh


Baxter, William
Chapman, Donald
Dell, Edmund


Beaney, Alan
Coleman, Donald
Dempsey, James


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony (Wedgwood)
Concannon, J. D.
Dewar, Donald


Bidwell, Sydney
Crawshaw, Richard
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John


Blackburn, F.
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Doig, Peter


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dalyell, Tam
Dunnett, Jack


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Eadie, Alex


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Ellis, John




Ennals, David
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Price, Christopher (Perry Bar)


Ensor, David
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Rees, Merlyn


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Fernyhough, E.
Loughlin, Charles
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Finch, Harold
Lubbock, Eric
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter


Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
McBride, Neil
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Foley, Maurice
McCann, John
Silverman, Julius


Forrester, John
MacColl, James
Slater, Joseph


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Small, William


Freeson, Reginald
Maclennan, Robert
Spriggs, Leslie


Galpern, Sir Myer
McNamara, J. Kevin
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Ginsburg, David
Marks, Kenneth
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Gregory, Arnold
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Taverne, Dick


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Millan, Bruce
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Tinn, James


Hannan, William
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Urwin, T. W.


Harper, Joseph
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Varley, Eric G.


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Murray, Albert
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Neal, Harold
Watkins, David (Consett)


Hazell, Bert
Ogden, Eric
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Henig, Stanley
O'Malley, Brian
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Oram, Albert E.
Whitlock, William


Hoy, James
Orbach, Maurice
Wilkins, W. A.


Hunter, Adam
Oswald, Thomas
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Hynd, John
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Winnick, David


Janner, Sir Barnett
Pavitt, Laurence
Woof, Robert


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)



Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pentland, Norman
Mr. Charles Grey and


Lawson, George
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Mr. Ernest G. Perry.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Peyton, John


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Heffer, Eric S.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hiley, Joseph
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Iremonger, T. L.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Biffen, John
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Black, Sir Cyril
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Ridsdale, Julian


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Royle, Anthony


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Lee, John (Reading)
Ryan, John


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Sheldon, Robert


Carlisle, Mark
Marten, Neil
Silvester, Frederick


Crouch, David
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Monro, Hector
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Neave, Airey
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Orme, Stanley
Waddington, David


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Ward, Dame Irene


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Page, Graham (Crosby)



Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hastings, Stephen
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Sir Knox Cunningham and




Mr. Ian Gilmour.

Question put accordingly, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 43, Noes 145.

Division No. 155.]
AYES
[10.1 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hiley, Joseph
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Iremonger, T. L.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Biffen, John
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ridsdale, Julian


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Silvester, Frederick


Black, Sir Cyril
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Marten, Neil
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Monro, Hector
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Crouch, David
Neave, Alrey
Waddington, David


Dalkeith, Earl of
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Ward, Dame Irene


Dean, Paul
Page, Graham (Crosby)



Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Sir Knox Cunningham and


Gresham Cooke, R.
Peyton, John
Mr. Ian Gilmour.


Hastings, Stephen
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch





NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Ginsburg, David
Murray, Albert


Anderson, Donald
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Neal, Harold


Archer, Peter
Gregory, Arnold
Ogden, Eric


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
O'Malley, Brian


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Oram, Albert E.


Barnett, Joel
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Orbach, Maurice


Baxter, William
Hamling, William
Oswald, Thomas


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hannan, William
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Blackburn, F.
Harper, Joseph
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Pavitt, Laurence


Booth, Albert
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hattersley, Roy
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hazell, Bert
Pentland, Norman


Buchan, Norman
Heffer, Eric S.
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Henig, Stanley
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Carmichael, Neil
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Rees, Merlyn


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Chapman, Donald
Hoy, James
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Coleman, Donald
Hunter, Adam
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Concannon, J. D.
Hynd, John
Sheldon Robert


Crawshaw, Richard
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Dalyell, Tam
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Silverman, Julius


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Slater, Joseph


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Small, William


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Lawson, George
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lee, John (Reading)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Delargy, Hugh
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Dell, Edmund
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Taverne, Dick


Dempsey, James
Lomas, Kenneth
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Dewar, Donald
Loughlin, Charles
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lubbock, Eric
Tinn, James


Doig, Peter
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Urwin, T. W.


Dunnett, Jack
McBride, Neil
Varley, Eric G.


Eadie, Alex
McCann, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ellis, John
MacColl, James
Watkins, David (Consett)


Ennals, David
Macdonald, A. H.
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Ensor, David
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Maclennan, Robert
Whitlock, William


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wilkins, W. A.


Fernyhough, E.
Marks, Kenneth
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Finch, Harold
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
Mendelson, John
Winnick, David


Foley, Maurice
Millan, Bruce



Forrester, John
Miller, Dr. M. S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Mr. Charles Grey and


Freeson, Reginald
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Mr. Ernest G. Perry.


Galpern, Sir Myer
Morris, John (Aberavon)

It being after Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on the Parliament (No. 2) Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. O'Malley.]

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Peyton: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is very difficult for anyone to hear what is going on because of the considerable hubbub which takes place on the Treasury Bench almost perpetually when a Division is about to take place. A

number of us were under the impression that the Whip did not move the suspension of the Standing Order, but moved that the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again. Those words were distinctly heard here. We ask for your guidance on why that Question and not the other was put.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): The hon. Member will have an opportunity in a very short time to hear what the Motion was that was moved.

Mr. Peyton: Further to that point of order. It is now that I wish to ask what exactly is the Motion on which we are voting. You have been kind enough to say that in a few moments I shall have an opportunity to hear what the next Motion is. I am now asking which Motion was moved from the Treasury Bench.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is, That the Proceedings on the Parliament (No. 2) Bill may be entered upon

and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed:—

The House having divided: Ayes 132, Noes 58.

Division No. 156.]
AYES
[10.10 p.m.


Anderson, Donald
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
O'Malley, Brian


Archer, Peter
Gregory, Arnold
Oram, Albert E.


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Orbach, Maurice


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Oswald, Thomas


Baxter, William
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Blackburn, F.
Hamling, William
Pavitt, Laurence


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hannan, William
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Buchan, Norman
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Pentland, Norman


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hattersley, Roy
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Carmichael, Neil
Hazell, Bert
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Chapman, Donald
Henig, Stanley
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Coleman, Donald
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Rees, Merlyn


Concannon, J. D.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Crawshaw, Richard
Hoy, James
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hunter, Adam



Dalyell, Tam
Hynd, John
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Irvine, sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Silverman, Julius


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Slater, Joseph


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lawson, George
Small, William


Delargy, Hugh
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Spriggs, Leslie


Dell, Edmund
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Dempsey, James
Loughlin, Charles
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Dewar, Donald
Lubbock, Eric
Taverne, Dick


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Doig, Peter
McCann, John
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Dunnett, Jack
MacColl, James
Tinn, James


Eadie, Alex
Macdonald, A. H.
Urwin, T. W.


Ellis, John
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Varley, Eric G.


Ennals, David
Maclennan, Robert
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ensor, David
McNamara, J. Kevin
Watkins, David (Consett)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Marks, Kenneth
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fernyhough, E.
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Whitlock, William


Finch, Harold
Mendelson, John
Wilkins, W. A.


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Millan, Bruce
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Foley, Maurice
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Forrester, John
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)



Fraser, John (Norwood)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Freeson, Reginald
Murray, Albert
Mr. Neil McBride and


Galpern, Sir Myer
Neal, Harold
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Ginsburg, David
Ogden, Eric





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Iremonger, T. L.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Kaberry Sir Donald
Ridsdale, Julian


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Royle, Anthony


Biffen, John
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Lee, John (Reading)
Sharples, Richard


Black, Sir Cyril
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Sheldon, Robert


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Silvester, Frederick


Booth, Albert
Marten, Neil
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Monro, Hector
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
More, Jasper
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Carlisle, Mark
Neave, Airey
Waddington, David


Crouch, David
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Ward, Dame Irene


Dalkeith, Earl of
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Weatherill, Bernard


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Peyton, John



Hastings, Stephen
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Pym, Francis
Sir Knox Cunningham and


Heffer, Eric S.
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Mr. Ian Gilmour.


Hiley, Joseph
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Powell: On a point of order. I wonder whether you could give us your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will recall that, in the course of the Division which has just taken place, my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) drew your attention to the fact that he had heard moved from the Treasury Bench the Motion, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again. You subsequently put the Question to the House,
That the Proceedings on the Parliament (No. 2) Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.
What I wish to submit to you is that that Motion, in order validly to be put by you from the Chair, requires to be moved from the Treasury Bench and that it was not, at any rate audibly to this side of the House, so moved. Could you please give us your guidance on what actually took place?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes, I think I can help the right hon. Gentleman. The procedure on occasions like this when a suspension Motion is to be moved, is that the Chairman leaves the Chair without putting any Question. It is reported, that the Chairman reports Progress and asks leave to sit again, whereupon—this is what in fact happened—the occupant of the Chair calls on the Prime Minister to move the suspension Motion on the Order Paper. That is exactly what happened this evening. It is perfectly in order.

Mr. Peyton: Further to that point of order. May I ask for guidance here. Every change in our procedures is made to expedite and facilitate the procedures

of the Executive, not the House. They represent changes which prejudice the position of the Opposition and those who disagree with the Bill. Though you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, called upon the Prime Minister to move the Motion, the right hon. Gentleman—and we are all grateful for it—was conspicuous by his absence and no one heard the Motion moved which you subsequently put.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Any Minister can stand in for the Prime Minister and it does not require an audible——

Mr. Bruce Campbell: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The tradition is that a nod is enough.

Sir Knox Cunningham: On a point of order——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Orders of the Day — PARLIAMENT (No. 2) BILL

Again considered in Committee.

Clause 5

The CHAIRMAN, being of the opinion that the principle of the Clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the Amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 47 (Debate on Clause or Schedule standing part), That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

Mr. Peyton: Biassed.

The Committee divided: Ayes 120, Noes 50.

Division No. 157.]
AYES
[10.23 p.m.


Anderson, Donald
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Forrester, John


Archer, Peter
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Freeson, Reninald


Baxter, William
Dell, Edmund
Galpern, Sir Myer


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Dempsey, James
Ginsburg, David


Blackburn, F.
Dewar, Donald
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Brown, Bob (N'ctle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Doig, Peter
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Buchan, Norman
Dunnett, Jack
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Eadie, Alex
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Carmichael, Neil
Ellis, John
Hamling, William


Chapman, Donald
Ennals, David
Hannan, William


Coleman, Donald
Ensor, David
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Concannon, J. D.
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Crawshaw, Richard
Fernyhough, E.
Hattersley, Roy


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Finch, Harold
Hazell, Bert


Dalyell, Tam
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Henig, Stanley


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Foley, Maurice
Hoy, James




Hynd, John
Millan, Bruce
Slater, Joseph


Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Small, William


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Spriggs, Leslie


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Taverne Dick


Lawson, George
Murray, Albert
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
O'Malley, Brian
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Oram, Albert E.
Tinn, James


Lomas, Kenneth
Orbach, Maurice
Urwin, T. W.


Loughlin, Charles
Oswald, Thomas
Varley, Eric G.


Lubbock, Eric
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Watkins, David (Consett)


McBride, Neil
Pavitt, Laurence
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


McCann, John
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


MacColl, James
Pentland, Norman
Whitlock, William


Macdonald, A. H.
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Wilkins, W. A.


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Rees, Merlyn
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Maclennan, Robert
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


McNamara, J. Kevin
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Marks, Kenneth
Ross, Rt. Hn. William



Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Silverman, Julius
Mr. Ernest G. Perry and




Mr. Joseph Harper.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Heffer, Eric S.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hiley, Joseph
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Iremonger, T. L.
Ridsdale, Julian


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Black, Sir Cyril
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Sharples, Richard


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Sheldon, Robert


Booth, Albert
Lee, John (Reading)
Silvester, Frederick


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Marten, Neil
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Crouch, David
Mendelson, John
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Monro, Hector
Waddington, David


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Neave, Airey
Ward, Dame Irene


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)



Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Page John (Harrow, W.)
Sir Knox Cunningham and


Hastings, Stephen
Peyton, John
Mr. Ian Gilmour.

Clause 6

LORDS SPIRITUAL

10.30 p.m.

The Chairman: We come now to the Motion in the name of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) to defer consideration of Clause 6.

Mr. Lubbock: On a point or order. Mr. Irving, during the Division that has just occurred, immediately after you said that in your opinion the matters dealt with by the Clause had been adequately discussed and you therefore proposed to put the Motion, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, I heard the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) say distinctly the word "biassed" indicating that in putting the Motion without allowing further discussion you were giving your favour to the Government and denying the opportunity of further debate to the Opposition. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman ought not to have made that remark, because it is a grave reflection on the Chair and

that, since the remark was made within the hearing of all hon. Members, the hon. Gentleman should be required by you to withdraw it or, if he chooses to pursue the matter, should table a Motion in the usual way.

The Chairman: Order. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) for his help, but I do not wish to have the decisions of the Chair questioned one way or the other.

Mr. Peyton: Further to that point of order. In view of what the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) has said—and I am sure that we are all very grateful to him for his guidance and help—I think I am entitled to say, Mr. Irving, that what the hon. Gentleman said was perfectly true. I did allow that observation to escape from me. I apologise to you unreservedly for having done so. It was a wrong thing for me to have said, and, in particular. I said it to the wrong person. In short, I allowed my feelings about the Bill, which I think are widely shared throughout the Committee, to


overcome my personal views of respect for yourself.

The Chairman: I am most grateful for the hon. Gentleman's generosity. Mr. Boyd-Carpenter, to move his Motion.

Mr. John Lee: On a point of order. Mr. Irvine, I wish to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again. As Clause 5, which we have just dealt with, represents the

end of a distinct phase of the Committee's work, and as Clause 6 concerns ecclesiastical representation in the other place, to which Clause there are many Amendments——

The Chairman: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman did not hear me correctly. I have not called the Clause or any Amendment to it. I have called the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames to move his Motion.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move,
That consideration of Clause 6 be deferred until after consideration of Clause 15 of the Bill.
Clause 6 deals with the peers spiritual. A considerable number of Amendments have been tabled to it. I suggest that it would be more convenient to the Committee if we dealt with that Clause after we have dealt with the block of Clauses which first finish off the provisions in respect of the composition and then go on to deal with the powers of another place. The reason which impels me to suggest that this might meet the convenience of the Committee is that the bishops, as I understand Clause 6, though reduced in number and reduced in voting power, will still number five voting peers. Those five are not included in the 30 cross-bench peers but are additional to them, though not part of any of the parties. Consequently, those bishops could play a decisive part in the closely balanced upper House contemplated by the Bill. In those circumstances, before we consider whether five is the right number to be voting peers, it is, in my submission, necessary that we should know the political voting record of the present peers spiritual.
For that reason—I am glad the Home Secretary is here—I wrote to the Home Secretary on 28th March raising this point and telling him what I had in mind. Perhaps I may read the letter:
Parliament No. 2 Bill.
One or two of us have today tabled a motion which proposes to defer consideration of Clause 6 of the Bill until after Clause 15. I was asked to write to you to explain why we were doing so and to give you advance notice of the point which we shall seek to raise. Clause 6 of course relates to the Bishops. As I understand the White Paper, those of the bishops who will retain voting rights under the Bill are to be treated as cross-bench peers for the purposes of the calculations on which, under the White Paper, appointments of voting peers are to be made. It is, however, the fact that certain of the present peers spiritual have definite political alignments. In order, therefore, to judge as to whether it is right to treat all voting peers spiritual as cross-bench peers, it seems to us to be necessary to obtain the voting records of the present peers spiritual in recent years. By voting records I don't, of course, mean the mere totality of votes cast by them. What would seem to be required is an analysis of the way in which the peers spiritual have voted, i.e. whether in favour of or against Government measures generally. There would

seem to be no reason to doubt that the Government could obtain this information for us. But it may be that it would take a little time to collect, and it is for this reason that we suggest that consideration of the relevant clause should be postponed.
The Home Secretary, with his habitual courtesy, replied:
April, 1969"—
The date is not precise. I realise that the Home Secretary has had a good many things on his mind recently, and I do not hold this against him.
Thank you for your letter of 28th March and letting me know the reasons for your motion to postpone consideration of Clause 6. Your letter suggests that you may have misunderstood what the White Paper says about bishops.
I find that rather wounding because I am interested in bishops.
Bishops and law lords are included among the 'peers not in receipt of a party whip' for the purpose of the table on page 5"—
I presume that means page 5 of the White Paper—
but the five bishops who will have voting rights are not included in the figure of 30 cross-benchers, which is given in the paragraphs dealing with the initial size of the voting House or in the total figure of 230. For these reasons I do not see how your proposed analysis would be very much help to the Committee. I can, however, tell you that in the session 1965–66 three votes were cast by bishops on Government business, two of them for the Government and one against. This represented 0·4 per cent. of all votes cast on Government business. In 1966–67 12 votes were cast by bishops, 11 of them for the Government and one against; the proportion of all votes was 0·2 per cent. These figures show that the bishops vote very rarely indeed on Government business and the number of votes cast is too small for any other conclusion to be drawn from them. In the light of the above, I do not see how it would help the Committee to postpone consideration of Clause 6.
I do not find the Home Secretary's conclusion entirely satisfactory. The desire is for information on this subject, and I do not want to recall to the Committee the amount of time that the Committee wasted, thanks to the dilatoriness of other Ministers in supplying the general voting records of the peers. I do not want to waste time on recalling the promises given and not carried out in a totally different document. That is why I took the trouble, which I hope the Committee will regard as courteous, to


let the Home Secretary know in advance what was proposed.
As the right hon. Gentleman gave in his letter to me certain selected statistics of episcopal voting, it seems that it would not have given him much difficulty to collect the lot for which I asked. If the Committee accepts the Motion and puts our consideration of Clause 6 after Clause 15, then, despite the headlong speed with which the Bill is proceeding, a few hours may elapse in which the Home Secretary can meet us and take the necessary steps to supply the material which we require. I move the Motion for that reason.
Under the Bill the number of bishops eligible to vote will be five. But with a House constructed as proposed, with a majority for the Government over the other two parties and supposed to be balanced by 30 cross-benchers, five unattached votes may in certain circumstances be of considerable or even of decisive significance. It is not unreasonable, therefore, that before the Committee is asked to come to a decision we should know how the present episcopacy have voted on the major issues of Government policy. This is important because if we know that in respect of past years, we shall know it for a considerable number of years to come, since the episcopacy, I am glad to say, always seem to enjoy magnificent health and have a tendency towards longevity equalled only by that of the judiciary. Thus, if we know how the episcopacy have voted in the last few years, we shall probably know how they are likely to vote during the whole period for which the Bill is likely to last.

Mr. John Fraser: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman do the work himself?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I was taught that the mark of the good administrator was the ability to delegate. There is the Home Secretary with nothing to do save to attend the National Executive of the Labour Party—where he makes a fool of himself—so I thought that it would be convenient to give him some work which actually had something to do with the Bill which he is nominally promoting in the House. That is my answer to the hon. Gentleman.
In all seriousness, figures in these matters are generally supplied by the Government of the day. They have the advantage of large staffs, which those of us in opposition do not have, and they can and often do serve the Committee by providing figures.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: My right hon. Friend's task would have been easy. The figures have been supplied to me by the Library. It would have been simple for my right hon. Friend merely to inquire of the Library for the figures, and they would have been supplied to him as they were supplied to me.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am infinitely obliged to the hon. Gentleman. It seems that the Home Secretary has been even more unhelpful than I thought. If the figures could have been obtained so easily, it would have been better if the right hon. Gentleman, having had a request made over a fortnight ago, had provided them all instead of selecting two.
In all seriousness, when a Committee engaged on legislation wishes to have some figures, it is much better and more reliable if we have them provided officially by Ministers who have official staffs to support them rather than allow even the most industrious hon. Member to make private calculations which may turn out to be wrong. The point of the last intervention, as I understand it, is that what the Home Secretary has refused to do would have been a matter of little trouble for him with his official staff.
An unwillingness on the part of the Minister to supply material when asked for it in this way is not a helpful approach to the conduct of a Bill. It may be, therefore, that it is well in character with the way in which the Home Secretary, when he is here, does conduct the Bill.

10.45 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): As the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) says that he is speaking in all seriousness, I shall treat his remarks precisely in that manner, and, naturally, I assume that he means what he says. I think that he is falling into a logical fallacy. It is not


proper, as he well knows from his experience at the Treasury, to extrapolate certain trends from the past and assume that they will persist in the future. He falls into a very great error when he thinks that because we know how certain individuals voted in the past we know how they will vote in the future.
For example, there are interesting combinations in this Chamber. But if I were to deduce that because the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has voted in a particular way with my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) over the past few weeks they will continue to vote in exactly the same way over the next few months, I think I should be very mistaken. I am sure my hon. Friend agrees with me.
Therefore, I beg the right hon. Gentleman not to assume that a simple extrapolation of votes cast for or against the Government in the past is likely to give him very much indication of how the bishops are likely to vote in the future. In case the Committee has not heard the figures, it will appreciate the seriousness and significance of this point when I repeat the figures I gave the right hon. Gentleman. Throughout the whole Session 1965–66 the bishops between them, on every issue of Government business, cast three votes. Two were for the Government and one was against. I should find it very interesting to extrapolate that curve to deduce how the bishops are likely to vote in the future.
I have indicated to the right hon. Gentleman that in the whole of the Session 1966–67, on every Amendment, every substantive Motion and every Division on Government business, all 26 bishops—all the jolly boiling of them—cast 12 votes between them, of which 11 were for the Government and one was against. That represented 0.2 per cent. of all the votes cast.
I know the right hon. Gentleman is anxious to make progress with the Bill, and therefore does not wish to hold us up tonight. I am convinced that with his usual clarity of thought and his desire to see the logical weakness of his own case he will acknowledge that 0.2 per cent. of votes cast in one Session and 0.4 per cent. in another are hardly likely to be supremely influential in determining what will happen in the future,

especially as it is not possible logically to deduce the way in which these votes will be cast. Therefore, as I have now given him the figures—

Mr. Lubbock: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us how the bishops voted on the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1968?

Mr. Callaghan: If the hon. Gentleman cared to write to me on that I should be glad to answer his question. My guess would be that they voted against. That would probably account for a large proportion of the 12 votes cast in the whole Session. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; he illustrates my point that one has to select each issue. There is no pattern of voting. It is quite clear that the bishops between them have been casting such an infinitesimal proportion of votes that their votes will have no influence.
In view of the right hon. Gentleman's desire to proceed with the Bill, I hope that he will accept the figures I have given, admit that they can have no influence on the course of our deliberations and withdraw his Motion so that we may proceed to consider Clause 6 in detail.

Mr. Hastings: On a point of order, Mr. Irving. Is it in order for the Home Secretary to refer to the lords spiritual as a "jolly boiling"? Is this not rather an unfortunate precedent for the debate?

The Chairman: Order. That may be so, but it is not out of order.

Mr. Powell: If the Home Secretary had been able to be present at rather more of our deliberations on the Bill than has been possible to him, the one thing he would never attack is extrapolation. For hour after hour in our debates we have been extracting the fact that the Government's whole scheme for a new Chamber is based upon extrapolation, and almost entirely extrapolation, if that be the correct mathematical description, from one instance, namely, the last complete Session of Parliament. The intricate figures adding up to 230 and the figure of 230 itself, are derived from the average attendance figure in the last Session of Parliament.
That is the scheme put forward by the Minister who has just attacked my right


hon. Friend for illogicality in being disposed to extrapolate from the past. The right hon. Gentleman himself, who is giving about as much attention to the proceedings of the Committee now as he does on the rare occasions when he is present, which amounts to the same attention as when he is absent, supplied the Committee at an earlier stage with detailed figures of the number of peers by succession who would need to become life peers, figures which were derived mathematically from the experience in the last Session of the actual attendances, as set out in the table on page 5 of the White Paper.
The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Social Services at an earlier stage in our proceedings gave particulars of attendance for the last two Sessions, and this led to the expression of interest in the longer-term record of attendance in the upper House, very much stimulated by the researches of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), which were eventually the cause of the production to the Committee of the last five years' attendance records in another place.
You will no doubt recall, Mr. Irving, that when those figures were produced they showed a very interesting and significant trend. It was a trend which by no means supported the deductions which the Government were drawing from the single case of the Session 1967/68. It is, therefore, no use whatsoever for the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary in a tirade against extrapolation to say that the Committee has no interest in the longer-term voting record of the bishops. Of course, we cannot directly draw deductions as to what would be the consequences in the future Chamber from the experience of the last five years, but we should be a good deal better off and in a better position to judge if we had those figures.
A very interesting and possibly important intervention was made just now by the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson). His intervention struck a chord which I am sure vibrated deeply in the memory of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne and others of us who have lived through these proceedings. He said that these figures were available in the Library. This was

where we came in on a previous occasion, and you may recollect, Mr. Irving, that we discovered that, although figures about attendance and behaviour of noble lords in another place might be available in the Library, they could not be provided to hon. Members of the Committee for the purposes of their deliberations upon the Bill without an elaborate procedure being gone through, a Motion being moved in another place and a considerable time elapsing.
It would, therefore, appear to follow that if we are to be provided in this Committee with the information which my right hon. Friend desiderates, it is no use just saying, "Oh, it's in the Library; you can go and look it up." We know from experience in this Committee that if these figures are to be available for the purposes of our debates then we have formally to request them from the Government, time has to be allowed to elapse, and then, if persuasion is more effective and more speedy than on the previous occasion, we may get them.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman. I should like to make one minor correction. He says that the figures are available in the Library; the figures are available from the Library on request. I applied to the Research Department for these figures to be provided. They were sent to me last week.

Mr. Powell: I am not surprised by that. Either this is a nightmare and we are going round and round, or I have heard almost exactly those words, only from one bench lower down. I dare say that the figures are available in the research department on request, but we know how the story goes on from there. It is that if the hon. Gentleman who says that he would like to consult the figures says that he would like to use them in the Chamber, they are immediately snatched away from him and he is told that they are confidential and that we shall have to have a Resolution in another place and a White Paper.
That innocent but still helpful intervention by the hon. Gentleman shows how necessary and well-founded was my right hon. Friend's Motion. He has reminded us that information for the use of the Committee, the statistical background of the other place, is not easily


come by unless the Committee duly and formally requests it. The hon. Member's intervention therefore added great force to the request embodied in my right hon. Friend's Motion.
My right hon. Friend has under-estimated the potential significance of the bishops' vote in the proposed new House of Lords and, consequently, his case is even stronger than he has made out. He said that in the new Chamber there would be five voting bishops. That is not quite correct. I apprehend that there will be at least five voting bishops because Clause 5(1) is applied by Clause 6(4) to the two archbishops and the three senior bishops, who will automatically be voting bishops, but Clauses 2 to 4 as applied by Clause 6(4) provide that any number of other bishops may put in a voting declaration to qualify themselves as voting members of the new Chamber. Therefore, as the Bill stands, there would be a minimum of five but a theoretical maximum of 16 voting bishops.
Consequently, the potential impact upon the structure underlying the Bill of Clause 6 as it stands is even larger than my right hon. Friend said. It is therefore all the more important for the Committee to have the statistical background which will enable us perhaps not to be certain of the behaviour of the lords spiritual in the new Chamber but at any rate to be in a better position to form opinions of it.
There is a very strong reason for not relying upon the experience of one or two years in this matter. We ought to consider a period of five or ten years. In a interchange between the Home Secretary and the spokesman for the Liberal Party, the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock)—he has gone again—it was elicited that the high voting record in a relatively large number of Divisions in a particular Session on the side of the Government might have been due to the particular business in that Session. All the more important is it that we should have a survey of a number of Sessions to have a deeper background and more information on the past behaviour of the Bench. From that we have got not to extrapolate in the mechanical sense but to get information on the past as our only material for forming some view of the likely future.
11.0 p.m.
The probability is that in a future House of much smaller numbers, the attendance, assiduity and significance of any given element will be much larger than it is at present. The mere numerical comparison which the Home Secretary trotted out is extremely misleading.
At the moment we have a House of Lords of over 1,000 members, and in that House the relative significance of a particular group is very small, but we are engaged in constructing a small voting House of 230 and we are told in the White Paper, and by implication in the Preamble, and by even more remote implication in the Bill, that the 230-member House will be constructed in a carefully balanced manner, so carefully balanced a manner that the Government, disregarding cross-benchers, who do not, for this purpose include bishops or law lords, will have a majority of only 10, so nice is the balance of this new Chamber to be.
When we are constructing a new Chamber, and judging each new element we put in, and we are deciding to put 16 prelates into this new Chamber, we are entitled to all the information we can be given on the likely affiliations and voting habits of 16 prelates.

Mr. Iremonger: The right hon. Member, in saying that there will be this nice balance under paragraph 48 of the White Paper, is assuming a voting House of 230 on the basis of the balance of parties here in the present Parliament, but, of course, in a Parliament in which the parties were more closely balanced here, they would be even more closely balanced in the upper House.

Mr. Powell: That is so, and therefore we cannot be regarded as being guilty of any lack of seriousness in desiring to understand how this scheme, for the sake of which all this legislation is being undertaken, would work if we were to legislate Clause 6 into the Bill as it now stands. My right hon. Friend understated the case for this Committee not to proceed to Clause 6 until we have the maximum information which can be supplied, if necessary with the permission of another place, on the past voting records and affiliations of the present lords spiritual.

Mr. Michael Foot: I cannot help thinking that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was a little hasty in his rejection of this Motion. He might have considered it a little more deeply and he might then come to a different conclusion, although I am willing to acknowledge that there are arguments on both sides.
If it was my right hon. Friend's intention to assist in the speedy passage of this Bill—and none of us is quite certain that it is his intention to proceed with the speedy passage—in the tactical sense it would have been better for him just to have got up and said "Yes". If that had occurred we would now be discussing—

Mr. Callaghan: Points of order.

Mr. Foot: —not points of order but Clause 7. My right hon. Friend has obviously not noted the way in which we have proceeded today with very few points of order.
Had my right hon. Friend accepted the Motion of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames nothing would have been lost, the Government would have acted graciously and the Committee could have proceeded with the Bill, later to return to Clause 6. Presumably my right hon. Friend regarded the claim of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames as derisory.

Mr. Callaghan: No.

Mr. Foot: His tone, if not his words, suggested that. His every nod and wink must be observed. We know my right hon. Friend well.
There may be a stronger argument against the Motion than the one my right hon. Friend used. I suspect it to be that if we are to have the voting record of the bishops presented to the country—not merely a record of their attendances but a record of how they voted on political matters—it would be invidious not also to have the voting record of the Law Lords, particularly since the laughable claim was made earlier that the Law Lords were not politically motivated. We should not discriminate against the bishops and have their voting record and political affiliations laid bare and not apply the same reasoning to others.

Mr. Alec Jones: Are not the voting records of hon. Members of the House of Commons when serving on Committees equally relevant?

Mr. Foot: That may be of some relevance, but I would be out of order if I answered my hon. Friend. Suffice for the moment to say that if the voting record and political affiliations of the bishops are to be made public, the same should apply to the Law Lords and others. In an earlier discussion we dealt with some of the advantages which are to be allowed to the Law Lords under these proposals. If we had the information that would be a further reason for dealing with that question afresh on Report.
I support what the right hon. Gentleman said, because I believe that we should have all these figures available. They can easily be secured, as was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson), who has greatly assisted the Committee in this matter. All that the Home Secretary needed to say in order that business should proceed was the simple word "Yes". Why did he not do it?
There seems to be some disease of obstinacy which is affecting the Government over the whole of the Bill. They take their stand firmly on each subsection, each Clause, each part of the Bill. They say that they will not concede a single inch, and then they have to concede it. Indeed, not only do they concede an inch but the whole territory is apparently to be conceded at some later date, though that happy announcement has not yet been made.
I cannot understand why the Government when confronted with a simple request of this nature should have been so obstinate about it and said, "No, we are determined to proceed in exactly the form in which we have previously indicated, and we will not concede a single inch to any reasonable proposal."
As for the bishops, we seem to have a somewhat larger attendance than has been the case up to now. All those who have bishops in their constituencies who are expecting prospective advantages seem to be assembled here. I am not sure what the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) is doing. He has been hanging around the place for weeks, which is a further conclusive reason for


postponing the debate. In fairness to the hon. Gentleman, I am sure that he would be eager to win his victory by silence rather than by sheer powers of oratory.
I have no particular interest in the bishops. The bishops, like the shepherds, should be watching their flocks. If they did, they might have a visitation from the angels and glory might shine all around. To judge from the figures which were given by my right hon. Friend, many bishops have been watching their flocks. It is better that they should be left undisturbed to do so. In order to ease the situation, I do not think we should proceed with the debate.

Mr. Tom Driberg: My hon. Friend is being extremely unfair to the bishops, because he has accepted at face value the right hon. Gentleman's figures and the deductions which the Home Secretary drew from them. On occasion it is not unknown in the other place, as it is not unknown here, for some Members to abstain from voting, even after having listened to a winding-up speech from the Front Bench. The Home Secretary ought to know that there are many issues, wrongly described as secular issues by those of the bishops who are Manicheans, on which bishops prefer not to vote. They may contribute their influence in debate without voting.

Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend has clearly illustrated the difficulties in which we will be plunged if we proceed in this debate without the fullest evidence on all sides. I approach these matters not merely in a secular spirit but in an Erastian spirit. I wish to see a subordination of the bishops to the popular electorate. That is one definition of Erastian.
11.15 p.m.
There is a further reason that it would be most inadvisable for us to proceed with the debate about the bishops tonight. All of us know that it is perfectly possible that this Bill will not be proceeded with. There have been discussions continuing; there have been statements in the Press; Mr. Walter Terry, I think it was, in the Daily Mail on Saturday morning had much to say on these matters—where he gets his information none of us would care to speculate just at this moment. But this

matter has been widely discussed in the Press. It has been said that this Bill is going to be dropped. I think that that is extremely likely. This discussion is a sheer waste of time; many of us think the whole thing has been a waste of time; but this will be even more a waste of time if we are only playing out time just till we draw stumps: rain stops play, I believe, at 11.30.
Now if this is the situation it would be most invidious that we should start a discussion on the bishops, a discussion in which many harsh words inevitably will be said from those who take a secular or Erastian point of view. Many harsh words will be said. The hon. Member for Wimbledon would drown us all in a flood of Baptist eloquence. The whole place would be turned upside down. We might have a situation in which one might wonder—not merely about the strains between the House of Commons and the House of Lords, strains which have been emerging in all our discussions on the Bill—whether even the whole ecclesiastical fabric of the State would be shaken. Indeed, we all know that there is a commission sitting at this moment—I am not quite sure what it is called, and I am not sure who sits on it, and I am not sure what it is seeking to discover—but there is a commission, I understand, on which highly placed ecclesiastics are discussing the whole future relationship of the State and the Church. We are eagerly awaiting its report. How unwise it would be for this Committee to proceed to discuss the position of the bishops in the second Chamber at a time when we have not had the wisdom of that commission whose names I cannot remember. What a pity it would be.
Therefore I urge upon my right hon. Friend to think again on the whole of this question. I ask him, in the interests of this Bill itself, in the interests of the speedy passage of the Bill, I ask him in the interests of orderly debate, and, above all, I ask him to accede to this Motion in the interests of the bishops themselves. Nothing could be more wasteful and injurious than a debate which would be directed to no end in the sense that it would fructify in any Bill produced from it. There would be no result from this debate. We would merely have a free for all in which wild, extravagant speeches would be made by


the hon. Member for Wimbledon, pouring scorn on those who seek to serve their God by their own methods. I think we must avoid this peril at all costs. Therefore I appeal for the united support of this Committee in making sure that the speech of the hon. Member for Wimbledon shall be postponed to another day.

Mr. Peyton: I do not think anyone in the Committee—with the exception of the Front Benches, of course—would wish to do anything but endorse the very eloquent and restrained request which has just been addressed by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) to the Home Secretary.
I feel the whole Committee should pause for a moment to wonder whether we are being fair to the Home Secretary. After all, he has come in here; he has brought almost an entirely fresh mind to bear on the problems of the Bill—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Very fresh.

Mr. Peyton: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend, who says that the state of mind of the Home Secretary is very fresh. I do not feel able to speculate upon such a metaphysical state of affairs, because I do not know any details of the ordeal through which the Home Secretary has recently been passing. I feel that perhaps sufficient expression has not been given to the sense of gratitude and indebtedness which many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee feel that the Home Secretary has come here at this time of the night—very late indeed—and brought to bear his almost unprejudiced and innocent mind on the Bill with which others of us are so contrastingly familiar.
The right hon. Gentleman's intervention did, however, somewhat diminish my gratitude. After all, he comes along with what any charitable person would recognise as the rather faded laurels of the Treasury still clinging to his brow and he says that extrapolation is a dangerous exercise. There are many people from whom I should be prepared to learn that lesson, but I do not wish to be offensive to the Home Secretary when I say that he would be very low on my list, particularly in view of the forthcoming events of tomorrow. One is horribly aware that perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is the last person to

warn the Committee about the way in which prophecies should be made and the bases on which forecasts should be formed.
The right hon. Gentleman has so far been unable to help us, and I find it astonishing that he should come to the Committee and say, quite solemnly, that though we have asked for information it is of no use to us. This is one of the very few things that should be left to Oppositions to judge. It is not for the Executive to tell the Committee of the House of Commons what information will be useful to it. It is clear from what the right hon. Gentleman said, and from what others have said, that the information asked for, whether useful or not, is easily available. I find the mixture of arrogance and sauce with which the Treasury Bench reject such simple requests quite intolerable.
I should like now to address a few remarks to another quarter, and that is to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson) who, unlike the Home Secretary, commands my unbounded admiration and loyalty. We all understand that my right hon. and learned Friend may feel under some constraint in expressing any views about the substance of the Bill, but here we have a procedural Motion upon which his guidance would be almost invaluable.
At the moment I lean heavily towards the opinions expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) in moving the Motion, but it would have an almost decisive effect if my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom were to break his chaste silence and give the Committee the benefit of his wise and learned advice. I very much hope that he will do so, because I pay him no compliment when I say that it would be vastly more useful, more original, and more profound than any prospects that we are likely to enjoy from anybody on the Treasury Bench, whether the Under-Secretary, who must be exhausted by his experiences there, or the Home Secretary who, although he comes fresh to the Bill, nevertheless has nothing very profound to offer.

Mr. Driberg: I support most of what my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw


Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) said, particularly his mention of the high-powered Church and State Commission set up by the Archbishop of Canterbury. It probably will not report for some months, but I imagine that these debates will still be in progress, and it would seem only common sense to wait for the views of the Commission before proceeding with any matter affecting the episcopal members of the House of Lords.
My hon. Friend touched on a very grave point when he said that this might affect the whole relations of the Church and State. The presence of the bishops in the House of Lords, whether we like it or not, is one of the pivotal aspects of the establishment of the Church of England. It is a great mistake to tamper seriously with one of those aspects unless one is prepared to take a look at the whole question of establishment and perhaps consider what many of my hon. Friends would like—the disestablishment of the Church of England. That is a much broader question than the Bill, because it embraces so many other aspects—whether the Archbishop of Canterbury should still have the privilege of crowning the monarch, if it be a privilege, whether bishops and other dignitaries of the Church should be appointed by the Crown on the recommendation of the Prime Minister—

Mr. Iremonger: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by questioning whether it is a "privilege" of the Archbishop to crown the monarch? Surely he means it the other way around—that it is a privilege for the monarch to be blessed by the Archbishop?

Mr. Driberg: That is a nice point. It is a weighty duty which may be regarded also as a privilege by some of those who have had to undertake it through the centuries. Many of us will recall how the aged Archbishop Lang's hands trembled in the film of the coronation of George VI.
It is all very well Ministers coming here and lecturing us about the episcopacy and making cheaply insulting remarks about the bench of bishops, as the Home Secretary did—I am sure that he did not mean to but was just talking in his colloquial way off the cuff—but they are not experts on the Church of England or its episcopacy. Only one hon. Member

may claim some expertness in this field—the Second Church Estates Commissioner, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu). He is not in his place tonight, wherever his place is. The debate should not proceed until we have the benefit of his advice. He can at least give us some idea of what is in the mind of the Church of England—if that is not a misnomer—on this point.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: I hope that the Home Secretary, who has been listening to the debate for a remarkably long time for his august presence, must be moved by the appeals from all sides, in the most reasoned and affectionate manner, asking him to reconsider his rather hasty judgment in not accepting the Motion. It seems eminently reasonable from what we have heard from all sides of the Committee that the Motion should be accepted.
11.30 p.m.
Perhaps I might rehearse some of the points which have been made. First, the point so admirably made by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) about the practicalities of the Government's present position. This is bound to be a heated debate, because people feel strongly about the position of the bishops in the other place. Therefore, it seems wise that this should be avoided until the Government have decided whether they propose to proceed with the Bill. This is a valid point.
The most important point, which has been taken up by all sides of the Committee, was the remark of the Home Secretary that, in his view, extrapolation could never be the basis for any form of argument. This, coming from a distinguished ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, a man versed—I nearly said worst—in statistics, who must know that there can be no projection without an initial extrapolation. Obviously the whole of any statistical record, any projection, must be based on the deduction of the extraction of these figures from the record.
The main point—and it was well touched on by the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg)—is not the extrapolation but the projections which come from these bases or statistics. The point made by the hon. Gentleman was that the bishops in the other place do not necessarily vote. The great importance


of the bishops, the lords spiritual, to the assembly of their Lordships' House is that their influence should not be by their votes but by what they say. What we want far more perhaps than what my right hon. Friend has suggested is an exegesis of their speeches over the last ten years. This would put the extrapolators, these hundreds of men working in the Home Office, to some good purpose at last. Perhaps they will get in some of the tax gatherers who will be unemployed and employ a large number of civil servants in carrying out this interesting historical research.
We should have at the minimum what my right hon. Friend has demanded. We should have an impression, over the last five or even ten years, how the lords spiritual have voted and, what is more, we should have the Second Church Commissioner here to give us a run down on what their general attitudes are. This is vitally important. When so evenly balanced a constitution as the two Front

Benches envisaged is embarked upon, which could mean five or even, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) suggested, if Clause 4(4) applies, as many as 16 reverend bishops voting in another place, then the situation becomes even more serious.

Surely at this late hour it is up to the Home Secretary, in view of what hon. Members on all sides have said, to accept the Motion, to pass on from this Clause, and to return to it when sufficient information has been laid before the Committee for a proper and even more serious discussion than we have had tonight.

Dr. Miller: Dr. Miller rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes, 92, Noes 49.

Division No. 158.]
AYES
[11.35 p.m.


Alldritt, Walter
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
O'Malley, Brian


Archer, Peter
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Oram, Albert E.


Baxter, William
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Oswald, Thomas


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hannan, William
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Bidwell, Sydney
Harper, Joseph
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Pentland, Norman


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Buchan, Norman
Hooley, Frank
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Rees, Merlyn


Carmichael, Neil
Hoy, James
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Coe, Denis
Hynd, John
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Coleman, Donald
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Concannon, J. D.
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Small, William


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Judd, Frank
Taverne, Dick


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Loughlin, Charles
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Dempsey, James
Lubbock, Eric
Tinn, James


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
McBride, Neil
Urwin, T. W.


Dunnett, Jack
McCann, John
Varley, Eric G.


Eadie, Alex
MacColl, James
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ellis, John
Macdonald, A. H.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Ennals, David
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Whitlock, William


Ensor, David
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wilkins, W. A.


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Fernyhough, E.
Marks, Kenneth
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Foley, Maurice
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Forrester, John
Millan, Bruce



Fraser, John (Norwood)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Freeson, Reginald
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Dr. M. S. Miller and


Galpern, Sir Myer
Murray, Albert
Mr. Alan Fitch.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Carlisle, Mark
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Crouch, David
Hastings, Stephen


Black, Sir Cyril
Crowder, F. P.
Heffer, Eric S.


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)


Booth, Albert
Dalkeith, Earl of
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Driberg, Tom
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Eyre, Reginald
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)




Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Marten, Neil
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Monro, Hector
Ridsdale, Julian
Waddington, David


Neave, Airey
Russell, Sir Ronald
Ward, Dame Irene


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Ryan, John
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Sharples, Richard



Peyton, John
Sheldon, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Silvester, Frederick
Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke and


Pym, Francis
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Mr. T. L. Iremonger.


Ramsden, Rt Hn. James
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)

Whereupon The CHAIRMAN declared that the Question was not decided in the Affirmative, because it was not supported by the majority prescribed by Standing Order No. 32 (Majority for Closure).

Question again proposed, That consideration of Clause 6 be deferred until after consideration of Clause 15 of the Bill.

Whereupon Motion made, and Question, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again—[Mr. Callaghan]—put and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — STEVEN LOCKTON (RESIDENTIAL CARE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

11.43 p.m.

Mr. A. H. Macdonald: I want at this late hour to raise the case of Steven Lockton, the son of Mr. and Mrs. Lockton, my constituents. Steven is a little boy aged 5½ who is mentally and physically disabled so that he is confined to a wheel chair. I understand that in the fulness of time there is some hope that he will be trained to the use of his limbs, although it is not likely that he will ever be able to lead a full normal life. At present, however, he is confined to a wheel chair.
Mr. and Mrs. Lockton also have a little daughter aged 3½. This little girl cannot understand why her brother does not play with her as the brothers of other little girls play with them. Mr. and Mrs. Lockton took advice about this and were advised that they should add to their family. They accepted this advice, and Mrs. Lockton is now expecting a further confinement in about five weeks time. During the later stages of her pregnancy she received medical advice that she should not lift her son Steven and, as I

have said, he is confined to a wheel chair and therefore this prohibition presented certain difficulties.
The question arose as to what should be provided for Steven, at any rate during the later stages of Mrs. Lockton's pregnancy, and if possible after that, because even after the birth, naturally, she will be faced with difficulties in manipulating a perambulator as well as a wheel chair. What she and her husband would naturally have liked would have been the provision of care for Steven, boarding him out for five days a week and letting him come home at weekends when Mr. Lockton is available to assist his wife.
My constituents made application to the local welfare authority, which is the London Borough of Bexley, and they were introduced to a home for mentally handicapped children, known as Goldie Leigh, in the borough. Mr. and Mrs. Lockton were invited to visit this home, which they did, and they were absolutely delighted by what they saw. They were gratified to see the care and the facilities that would be available there for their son. They noted the very satisfactory ratio of staff to patients at Goldie Leigh and they went home well contented and awaited the formal notification that Steven would be admitted to this home. But this notification did not come.
Instead they got a note to say that there was no place for Steven at Goldie Leigh but that a place could be found for him at another home for mentally handicapped children at Darenth. This is outside the borough but not far away. Both of these homes, Goldie Leigh and Darenth, are not controlled by the local authority but are the responsibility of Dartford and Stone Hospital Management Committee. Mr. and Mrs. Lockton accordingly went to see the facilities that were available at Darenth, and I am sorry to say that they came back determined that their son would not go there. They were not happy about what they saw would be the treatment or, as they rather


saw it, the absence of treatment that would be provided at this home.
I suppose it is very natural when any person is, for example, thirsty, that he is much more thirsty if he sees refreshment available but which he cannot get. Mr. and Mrs. Lockton have seen the facilities at Goldie Leigh and yet they were offered only a place at Darenth. I suppose there are two types of parent of mentally handicapped children. The one type of parent wishes to put out his child to full-time care and have nothing whatever further to do with him, whereas the other type of parent gives extra love to his mentally handicapped child. I do not know that I want to blame the first kind of parent. I have been spared this kind of trial and so I do not want to criticise, but I do say that Mr. and Mrs. Lockton are the second type of parent and they have a very deep love for their little boy, especially so because he is handicapped.
Mrs. Lockton is most unwilling to see her son offered a place at Darenth after she has seen the wonderful facilities that are available at Goldie Leigh. At this point, I break off the narrative to make absolutely clear that in what I have to say I neither offer nor imply any kind of criticism of the Dartford and Stone Hospital Management Committee or of the staff and facilities available at Darenth. I have some criticisms, but I have none whatever of the authorities responsible. Indeed, I consider that people who work in mental welfare deserve praise rather than blame, and it is praise that they will have from me. Like everyone else, they have to work with the facilities which are made available to them. If there be criticism, that criticism, I suppose, should be directed at me and other Members of Parliament for failing to make available the finance required for adequate care of mentally handicapped children.
I shall not develop that theme further, since to do so would be to step a little outside the bounds of this debate, but I wished to make those few remarks to show that, whatever other criticisms I have, I have no criticism, overt or implied, of the mental welfare authorities responsible for the home at Darenth. I venture to hope that little attention will be paid tomorrow to cries for the cutting of taxation when we see these defects

existing in our provision of mental welfare facilities. Having said that, I come straight back to the case of Steven Lockton.
As I have said, the facilities at Goldie Leigh which Mr. and Mrs. Lockton saw have not been made available to them. I think that they would not have been nearly so distressed if they had never actually seen Goldie Leigh. But to be told about it, to be invited to visit it, to be shown round, to be allowed to suppose that it was the place to which their son would go, and then to be told that no place was available was most unfortunate. They have been told that they may put Steven's name down on a waiting list for admission to Goldie Leigh. If Mr. and Mrs. Lockton had known of the existence of Goldie Leigh, they would have put his name down years ago.
In these circumstances, temporary provision was found for Steven at Cray Valley Hospital in my constituency, but it was only temporary and he had to leave there a little time ago. He is now at Queen Mary's Hospital at Carshalton, which has a special unit for mentally handicapped children. By coincidence, I know something of that hospital because I have another constituent who had a child there and who speaks very highly of the facilities there. So do Mr. and Mrs. Lockton, and they would be only too happy if Steven could stay there. But the arrangement is only temporary because the place has been found for Steven only while the children who are usually cared for at Queen Mary's Hospital are at home with their parents during the Easter holidays. Steven will have to leave Queen Mary's on Wednesday week when they return.
I should add that this temporary provision has been found by the welfare department of the London Borough of Bexley. I greatly appreciate the understanding, the sympathy and the efforts which the Bexley welfare department has shown throughout the whole of this case. But, as I say, Steven will have to leave Queen Mary's Hospital at Carshalton in just over a week. That will be only two or three weeks before Mrs. Lockton's confinement, and the future of Steven is still not entirely clear.
In these circumstances, Mr. Lockton made application to the London Borough


of Bexley to find out whether some sort of financial assistance could be provided to help him find accommodation for Steven at a private home. But the decision was that no financial assistance could be made available while there was a place offered and available for Steven at Darenth. I can understand this decision and, therefore, I do not press that point.
Then Mr. Lockton asked whether efforts might be made to find suitable accommodation for Steven at a home outside the borough, other than Darenth. This request, too, was not acceptable. I do not fully understand the reasons.
He tried again, and asked if he could be provided with home help assistance. The London Borough of Bexley provides home help assistance, and the standard charge is 6s. 6d. an hour, subject to an assessment of the applicant's means. The application was assessed in the normal way, and the result is that Mr. Lockton must pay £3 15s. for the first hours of home help assistance per week, and then can have as many extra hours as he likes free. The blunt fact is that he cannot afford that £3 15s., and therefore the offer of home help, acceptable though it might be in other circumstances, is not practical for him.
Therefore, it seems that inexorably Mr. and Mrs. Lockton are being driven to accept the accommodation offered at Darenth. I am anxious not to use too emotional or over-emphatic language, but Mrs. Lockton is in some agony of mind. At a time when her confinement is imminent and above all else she should have peace of mind, she is suffering great distress in not knowing exactly what care will be provided for Steven, and fearing that in the event he will have to be accommodated at Darenth.
For the reasons I have given, although in other circumstances she might have accepted that, she finds it very hard having seen the greatly superior facilities available at Goldie Leigh. Therefore, as a last resort, tonight I am asking my hon. Friend if he could intervene, even at this late stage, to see if it is possible to find some accommodation at Goldie Leigh for Steven, at least during the time of Mrs. Lockton's confinement and the period immediately after the birth of her child.
I have had correspondence with his Department, which has been most courte-

ous and helpful; I gladly put that on record. But I raise this matter tonight because the matter is now of some urgency owing to the coming confinement of Mrs. Lockton. I hope that even at this late stage it may be possible to resolve it in a way that will satisfy this mother, who deeply cares for her mentally handicapped child and wants to see the best possible care made available for him.

11.58 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. David Ennals): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald) for raising this case, and doing so in a very sympathetic way, on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Lockton and their child. I also thank him for giving me notice of the points he would raise and enabling me to look into the matter. Although there are not many people in the House, I am always glad of an occasion like this when Parliament can consider the case of an individual, and I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for affording the opportunity.
I hope that I can give my hon. Friend and Mr. and Mrs. Lockton some reassurance. I feel as much sympathy for them as my hon. Friend does.
It might be helpful if I recapitulate the events that have led up to the present position. Because of his physical and mental handicaps, Steven, who is now 5½, was in the supervision of the London Borough of Bexley receiving physiotherapy treatment on one day a week from the age of two until he was five. In December 1967 the local authority's health and welfare departments examining medical officer found him unsuitable for education at school and considered him to be too handicapped to take advantage of training centre facilities. Residential care in hospital on five days a week was recommended, but at that time Mr. and Mrs. Lockton felt unable to accept this suggestion. In July 1968 Steven was admitted to the Sidcup Junior Training Centre for one day each week, as neither of the council's two training centres has special care facilities which would enable it to cope with a child so severely handicapped, and in the interests of the other children attending the centre and the staff, the council felt that this was the most that it could do.
In January, 1969, Mrs. Lockton again being pregnant and expecting her confinement late in May, the medical officer of health again raised with Mr. and Mrs. Lockton the question of five-day residential care for Steven. They recognised that it would be very difficult for Mrs. Lockton, particularly during her period of confinement. Mrs. Lockton asked if she might visit Goldie Leigh hospital before coming to a final decision. The local authority arranged for Mr. and Mrs. Lockton to visit this hospital on 20th January, and they were told that any approach for in-patient admission would need to be made through the South East Metropolitan Hospital Board.
Mrs. Lockton was agreeable to Steven's admission to Goldie Leigh for five-day care, but when the medical officer of health, in accordance with usual practice, approached the hospital authorities, they said that no places were available at Goldie Leigh but, instead, offered an immediate place at Darenth Park Hospital where the services of a physiotherapist with special experience with cerebral palsy children would be available.
I am glad that my hon. Friend went out of his way not to make any criticism of the hospital management committee who are responsible for Darenth, in which a great deal of very good work is done for a large number of patients. One can well understand the attraction of Goldie Leigh because it is a much smaller hospital, but it has the same consultant physician, it comes under the same hospital management committee, and there are facilities at Darenth which are not necessarily available at Goldie Leigh.
Unfortunately, Mr. and Mrs. Lockton did not find the offer of a place at Darenth Park acceptable. A consultant from Darenth Park Hospital visited them at the request of their general practitioner, and he made a firm offer of five-day care at Darenth Park Hospital beginning on 11th February, but this was refused. Steven was, however, admitted to Cray Valley Hospital on 6th March for a 10-day stay, to relieve pressure on Mrs. Lockton, who was of course much concerned.
I understand from the regional hospital board that a place will shortly be available at Hill House Hospital, Rye, and the medical officer of health has been informed of this.
The key question in this case is the kind of care which Steven needs. Both the local health authority and the regional hospital board are fully aware of the position, and have been considering what arrangements can best be made to help Mr. and Mrs. Lockton. A consultant psychiatrist has seen Steven in his home, and I understand that the regional hospital board, on the advice of its consultant psychiatrist, does not consider that he requires long-term hospital care. The board, however, offered a short-term place at Darenth Park Hospital to relieve pressure on Mr. and Mrs. Lockton, which was refused, and has now made an alternative offer of a place at Hill House.
My hon. Friend made a comment on the fact that a visit was made to Goldie Leigh Hospital by Mrs. Lockton, when no places were available. I would stress, however, that the visit was arranged entirely at Mrs. Lockton's own request and carried no promise or obligation that a place was, or could be made, available for Steven. The question of a place arose only after Mrs. Lockton had seen the hospital and had decided she wanted to make an application for her son to go there. It will be recognised that there are many other people also waiting, and it is difficult to edge one out in favour of another.
The immediate problem of short-term care during Mrs. Lockton's confinement therefore appears to have been solved by an offer of a place at Hill House. There remains the longer-term problem. Unfortunately, the local health authority does not at present have facilities to provide five-day care and training for the severely handicapped child. I know my hon. Friend will be pleased to hear, however, that there is a 60-place junior training centre under construction at Sidcup, which is due to be completed in March 1970, and which will contain 12 special care places, one of which will be offered to Steven. The 1969/70 capital programme of the authority contains provisions for a hostel for mentally subnormal children.
The local authority will, however, of course continue to make available facilities for training on one day each week at a junior training centre, and there will be full support in the home by visits and advice from the staff of the Health and Welfare Department. With a new baby, however, Mrs. Lockton will obviously need more help than this, and I am sure that the local authority has fully in mind the problem whether any further help with the care of Steven can be given. I think that there is an immediate solution for the next few months, and then one might also see the way to a long-term solution.
I recognise that the worry has caused a good deal of distress to Mrs. Lockton. The assessment of Steven's needs is highly specialised and we are all determined that he should receive the care and training which will help him best.
As I said at the beginning of my comments, Steven's needs are over-riding. I am sure that both the hospital authorities and the local health authority have this as much in mind as have my hon Friend and I. I therefore think that some good will have come from my hon. Friend's having sought leave to raise this matter in the House. I am now well aware of the concern by the hospital authorities and the local authority as well as by my own Department, and I think that as a consequence of all that has been done a solution will be found which will be to the advantage of young Steven who, I hope, will be able to benefit from some of the facilities which have been made available for him.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Twelve o'clock.